1. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.11.2015 passed in O.A.No.205/2013 vide Annexure C and further seeking to restore the order dated 17.06.2013 vide Annexure A passed in O.A.No.205/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench (‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. The O.A.No.205/2013 was filed by the petitioner herein against issuance of Advertisement for the post of Field Investigator published in Samyukta Karnataka on 09.01.2013 on contract basis for a period of nine months from 01.04.2013 and also against the office memorandum in No.2(1)Rect.F1/KTK(N)201213 dated 21.12.2012 indicating that, the contract of engagement would be over on 31.03.2013, issued by the respondent No.2, so far it relates to the applicant.

3. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. G.G. Chagshetty, for the petitioner and Smt. Hema. L.K., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed as Field Investigator with effect from 09.06.2010 and he has been working in the office of respondent No.3 coming under department of respondent No.2 and continued for the period of one year. Again the contract extended initially after 30.06.2012 and thereafter up to 31.03.2013. Thus the petitioner had rendered nearly 03 years of service and initial recruitment having been made after a public notification, the recruitment has been made as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and after complying with the Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The respondent No.3 issued another notification in the year 2013 to fill up the same posts held by the petitioner and others again on contract basis. Though the petitioner belonged to SC/ST and also had put nearly 03 years of service as on that date, he was not considered for renewal of contract appointment on the ground that, the age for fresh appointment which was earlier 40 in respect of SC/ST and OBC has been subsequently reduced in the latest notification fixing the maximum age limit to 30 years subject to a relaxation to the extent of number of years of service as also the General Circular of age relaxation in Central Government Appointment for SC/ST. The petitioner was thus not selected in the said recruitment and there was threat of termination from 01.04.2013.

5. The petitioner filed O.A.No.205/2013 before the Tribunal seeking direction to set a side the advertisement dated 09.01.2013 as it contravenes the original notification where the age limit was up to the age of 40 years. The petitioner had also sought for considering his case for regularization.

6. The Tribunal initially by its order dated 17.06.2013 allowed the O.A.No.205/2013 filed by the petitioner holding that, the matter is covered by its earlier order passed in O.A.No.339/2011 dated 01.04.2013 and further holding that, the applicant/petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit to the extent as has been allowed in O.A.No.339/2011.

7. The respondents herein filed Review Application in R.A.No.35/2013 to recall/review the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal by its order dated 15.09.2015 allowed the said R.A.No.35/2013 and recalled the order passed in O.A.No.205/2013 dated 17.06.2013 and passed fresh orders dated 20.11.2015 thereby dismissing the original application, observing that, the applicant would be entitled to remuneration for the period beyond 01.03.2013 since he continued in the service of the respondents by virtue of the stay order.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the original application in O.A.No.205/2013 was initially allowed by the Tribunal following the judgment passed in O.A.No.339/2011 dated 01.04.2013 and there was no error apparent on the face of the order so as to review the said order and for dismissing the application. He submits that, initially appointment was against the sanctioned post of Field Investigators and persons appointed along with petitioner and even later h