( 1 ) THE question arising for determination being same and similar, therefore, we are disposing of these petitions together.

( 2 ) IN C. W. No. 5786/98 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 6/11/1998 is under challenge by which order four Misc. Applications (MA. 2151/98 in OA. 1917/98; MA. 2153/98 in OA. 1918/98; MA. 2152/98 in OA. 1923/98; MA. 2154/98 in OA. 1924/98 and MA. 2155/98 in OA. 1944/98) seeking vacation of the interim order of maintenance of status quo passed on 5/6-10-1998 have been dismissed. Five Judicial and Accountant Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal approached the Tribunal apprehending termination order being served upon them. The Tribunal on 5/6-10-1998 passed orders directing status quo being maintained. The petitioner Union of India applied for vacation of the stay order. The said applications have been dismissed.

( 3 ) C. W. 6604/98 is against the order passed on 13/11/1998 by the Tribunal directing the petitioner Union of India to restore status quo ante, which existed prior to the serving of the impugned termination order dated 5/10/1998 on the respondent Shri Praveen Kumar Bansal, Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

( 4 ) SOME of the relevant facts in brief are that in the month of September, 1996 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up of 8 posts of Judicial Members and 10 posts of Accountant Members in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Out of 8 posts of Judicial Members, two were reserved for Scheduled Caste; one for Scheduled Tribe and one for O. B. C. Out of 10 posts of Accountant Members, two were reserved for Scheduled Castes; two for Scheduled Tribe and one for O. B. C. Advertisement published in daily newspapers on 9/9/1996 also mentioned that number of vacancies indicated were approximate and liable to alteration. T Selection Board considered the candidature of 91 and 45 candidates respectively for 8 posts of Judicial Members and 10 posts of Accountant Members. The Board recommended 14 candidates in the main select list under different categories against the fixed number of advertised vacancies of 18 Members. It could not find suitable candidates in respect of four reserved categories in the category of Accountant Members and as such these vacancies were required to be carried forward to the next recruitment year. In addition the Selection Board also recommended names of 11 candidates in the waiting list under different categories. In the meanwhile, the Government had proposed to set up additional, Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Cabinet s approval was also accorded on 1/4/1997 for creation of additional Benches. Thus sanction for 29 additional posts of the members was granted on 1/4/1997 and second advertisement was issued for filling up the posts on 27/9/1997.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the first advertisement selections were made but while filling up vacancies appointment letters were also issued to 9 candidates in excess of the advertised vacancies. At that stage President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal appears to have made a representation to the Government objecting the appointment of members in excess of the advertised number of vacancies, which led to the Government taking a decision about nine candidates, who had been appointed in excess of advertised vacancies that their services deserve to be terminated. Those appointees having come to know of the likely termination, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by filing petitions. On 5/6-10-1998 an ex parte interim orders were passed for maintenance of status quo. Short reply thereafter was filed by the petitioner along with applications for vacation of stay. The Tribunal heard those applications but dismissed the same by the impugned order. It came to the conclusion that there was strong prima facie case in favour of the appointees and at this stage it was not a fit case for vacation of