BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby his original application being O.A. No.4154/2011 has been rejected on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground of nonjoinder of all the affected persons.

2. 2. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) quash seniority list circulated vide O.M. dated 01.08.2011 to the extent applicant has been placed at sl. No.791 therein; and

b) direct the respondents to accord the applicant his due seniority and place him below Sl. No.557 and above Sl. No.558 in the seniority list circulated vide O.M. dated 01.08.2011; and

c) direct the respondents to accord all the consequential benefits to the applicant w.e.f. the date when his juniors in the cadre of AE (Civil) have been accorded such benefits; and

d) pass any such further order or direction as may be deemed fit, proper and necessary.”

1. 3. From the above, it is apparent that the petitioner sought the quashing of the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in CPWD as on 01.01.2011. The said final seniority list was circulated through the Office Memorandum dated 01.08.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Works, CPWD, Government of India. The petitioner had also sought a direction from the Tribunal to place him below S.No.557 and above S.No.558 in the said final seniority list. The petitioner had, as a consequence thereof, also prayed that he be given all the benefits with effect from the date his juniors in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) had been accorded such benefits. It is, therefore, clear that the primary challenge of the petitioner was to the final seniority list circulated vide the said O.M. dated 01.08.2011. In that seniority list, the petitioner had been placed at S.No.791 and his claim was that he ought to be placed below S.No.557 and above S.No.558.

2. 4. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the CPWD on 01.11.1979. He was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 04.06.1993. The respondent No.3 (Shree Pal Singh) was also appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on 30.10.1983. It may be pointed out that the promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were on the basis of 50% from amongst the Junior Engineers (Civil), who had six years regular service in the grade and the balance 50% through limited departmental competitive examination.

5. A provisional seniority list was circulated by an Office Memorandum dated 04.06.2002 which had been issued by the Directorate General of Works, CPWD. The said O.M. dated 04.06.2002 was explicit that the seniority list was provisional and was subject to the final outcome of various court cases pending in various courts. In the said provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil), the petitioner was shown at S.No.2600 and it had been indicated that he had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 29.11.1994. It was the case of the petitioner that his

date of promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) should have been indicated as 04.06.1993 and not as 29.11.1994. According to the petitioner, this was a mistake. Because of this mistake, a person, such as the respondent No.3 (Shree Pal Singh) who was, according to the petitioner, junior to him, was shown at S.No.2078 inasmuch as the said respondent No.3 (Shree Pal Singh) had been indicated to have been promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 17.09.1993. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 (Shree Pal Singh), who was the next immediate junior as also the other junior officers, were shown to be higher in the seniority list than the petitioner.

3. 6. Thereafter, promotions to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) were ordered on 12.05.2006. These promotions were from amongst the Assistant Engineers of b