( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 28/02/2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("cat" for short) in OA No. 691/2000 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioners who were two in number filed the aforementioned Original Application before the learned Tribunal questioning the inaction of the respondents in the matter of inclusion of (heir names in the list for their promotion as an Assistant Engineer in Central Public Works Department (CPWD ).

( 3 ) THE factual matrix relevant for the purpose of this petition is as follows: the UPSC invited applications on or about 1/08/1992 from eligible candidates for a limited departmental competitive examination lor promotion of Junior Engineer Grade (Electrical) to the post of Assistant Engineer grade (Electrical) in the CPWD. Rule 8 of Rules of examination is as follows:

"8. After the examination, candidates will be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate; and in that order so many candidates as are found by the Commission to be qualified by the examination shall be recommended for promotion up to the required number. Provided that candidates belonging to the Scheduled castes or the Scheduled Tribes may to the extent the number of vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes cannot be filled on the basis of the general standard be recommended by the Commission by a relaxed standard to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota, subject to the fitness of these candidates for promotion irrespective of their ranks in the order of merit at the examination. "the said examination was held for 36 posts, out of which 18 were meant for general category, 9 for ST category and 9 for SC category candidates. Upon holding the examination, the UPSC recommended only 31 candidates out of 74 candidates qualified out of whom 18 belonged to general category, 12 to sc and 1 to ST category.

( 4 ) AN Original Application was filed before CAT which was marked as OA 2126/93 on the ground that the reservation rules applicable to SC/st candidates, as contained in para 11. 2 of the Brochure for reservation had not been followed. A similar application was filed by two other candidates before the Tribunal which was marked as OA 1965/94. The said applications were allowed by two different Benches of the CAT on 23/04/1999 and 14/07/1999. The said orders have been complied with by issuing a supplementary list of three more reserved candidates qualified for examination and merit list including three of the applicants in the aforesaid two Original Applications.

( 5 ) THE petitioners filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking the same relief which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 28/02/2001. Mr. Khurana, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that having regard to the decisions of the Tribunal in the afore-mentioned two applications, there could not have been any reason for the Tribunal to disagree therewith inasmuch as in the event the requisite number of candidates in the ST category is not available, the posts should be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to the SC category.

( 6 ) THE judgments of a court of law which have attained finality, contends Mr. Khurana, should be given effect to and the persons similarly situated must be given the same benefit. The learned counsel would contend that the instructions still being in force, the respondents acted illegally in not implementing the same.

( 7 ) MS. Raman Oberoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the Tribunal had disposed of the earlier decisions on a wrong premise. It was contended that there exists a distinction between inter-changeability of the candidates who were to be appointed through limited depa