The validity of the panel, extension of the panel, and entitlement for appointment against subsequent vacancies were crucial in determining the petitioners' claim for appointment.

V.K. JAIN, J:

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.11 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short „the Tribunal?), whereby OA 1000/2010, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as follows:-

Petitioner No.1, Bijender Singh was appointed as a Work Attendant with the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, in the year 1992, whereas petitioner No.2, Rajbir Singh was appointed as Instructor Diesel Mechanic. 14 vacancies in the posts of Foreman Instructors/surveyors/Senior Technical Assistants were advertised for being filled up by way of direct appointment. 9 out of those 14 vacancies were unreserved. The SSC recommended 12 names for appointment. While making its recommendations, the assessee had also drawn a panel of 5 wait listed candidates. The names of both the petitioners figured in the said panel and both of them had applied for the unreserved posts.

2. Some of the candidates, who were aggrieved by the selection made by SSC for appointments to the posts, preferred an original applications before the Tribunal challenging the selection process. The Tribunal, vide order dated 24.09.1997 allowed the OAs filed by those persons. It was held by the Tribunal that the selections made by the Selection Committee were neither objective nor fair and, therefore, the selections as well as the appointment orders were liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to hold fresh selections and make appointments based on the fresh selections.

3. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by way of WP(C) 4199/1997. CM No. 12170/2008 was filed by the petitioners herein before this Court in WP(C) 4199/1997 seeking their impleadment to the litigation. The applicants were allowed to intervene in the matter and make their submissions at the time of hearing.

4. Vide order dated 28.07.2009 passed in W.P.(C) 4199/1997, it was held that there was nothing to suggest that the interviews were conducted and selections made in a manner that should cast any doubt or suspicion about the authenticity of the selection process. The order passed by the Tribunal was, therefore, set aside. Noticing that two other submissions made by the private respondents had not been decided by the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide on the question whether the successful petitioners were indeed qualified or not.

5. Post remand of the OAs, the Tribunal, vide order dated 09.09.2009 held that the private respondents were indeed qualified and accordingly dismissed the OAs.

6. OA 3188/2009 was then filed by the petitioners herein, claiming that they were also covered by the judgments of the Tribunal dated 09.09.2009. The Tribunal directed respondent No.2 to examine the case of the petitioners, treating the OA as a supplementary representation and pass an appropriate order on it. Vide Memorandum dated 15.01.2011, the representation made by the petitioners was rejected by the respondents. OA 1000/2010 was then filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to consider them for appointment to the posts of Group Instructor, pursuant to the panel in which they were selected. They also sought consequential benefits with effect from the date of their appointment as Group Instructor. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that at least 10 vacant posts of Group Instructor had become available after the panel had been drawn. This, however, was rebutted by the respondents who stated that the consequential vacancies referred to in the OA had occurred after several years from the date of original vacancies, the first replacement vacancy having occurred on 25.5.1999, the second on 30.06.2005 and the third on 30.11.2008. The respondents also stated that in terms of DOPT OM dated 14.05.1987, which was annexure R-2 and OM dated 18.01.1990 which was annexure R-1, the p