JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These are two petitions by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board ("DSSSB") challenging the orders dated 1st February and 27th February, 2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ("CAT") allowing OA Nos. 3941/2015 & 1578/2016, respectively.

2. W.P.(C) No. 5756/2017 is directed against the order dated 1st February, 2017 in OA No. 3941/2015. Petitioner No. 1 therein is the DSSSB through its Chairman; Petitioner No. 2 is Government of NCT of Delhi ("GNCTD") and Petitioner No. 3 is the Principal Secretary, GNCTD. The Respondents, three in number, are those who filed the above OA No. 3941/2015, which came to be allowed by the CAT.

3. W.P.(C) No. 13773/2018 is directed against the order dated 27th February, 2018 in OA No. 1578/2016. Petitioner No. 1 therein is the GNCTD; Petitioner No. 2 is the Principal Secretary, GNCTD and Petitioner No. 3 is DSSSB through its Chairman. Here again, there are 3 Respondents, all of whom filed the above OA No. 1578/2016, which was allowed by the CAT.

4. The central issue in both these writ petitions is whether the CAT was justified in setting aside an order dated 15th March, 2016 passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi ("GNCTD") cancelling the examination held in 2014 and 2015 for appointment to the post of Head Clerk [Grade 2 (DASS)] in the GNCTD and directing the Petitioners to finalize the selection process for the above post, under post code 90/09 for which the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations had already been held on 29th June, 2014 and 29th March, 2015, respectively.

5. Two factors are required to be noticed at the outset. The first is that by an order dated 14th July, 2017 in W.P.(C) 5756/2017 this Court stayed the operation of the first impugned order dated 1st February, 2017 of the CAT. The second factor to be noticed is that before the CAT there were only 3 Applicants in each of the two petitions (i.e. 6 Applicants in all) who had approached it for relief, even though the impugned orders of the CAT contained directions that could benefit not only the 6 Applicants but others who had not approached it as well. Nevertheless, applications for intervention filed in this Court were dismissed. One such order was passed on 15th December, 2017 in W.P.(C) 5756 of 2017 dismissing CM APPL Nos. 34652/2017 & 43985/2017 (under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC). The said order reads as under:

"CM Nos. 34652/2017 & 43985/2017 (by the interventionist under Order I Rule 10 CPC)

1. The present applications have been filed by the applicants seeking impleadment in the petition on the ground that they were declared as successful candidates in the examination held by the petitioners in respect of advertisement No.004/2d09 for post code No.90/09.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2017 the OA filed by the respondents raising a grievance that after completion of the entire exercise for filling up the subject post, the DSSSB had not issued the select list as per the merit of the examination and had instead cancelled the entire selection process, was allowed by the Tribunal. While allowing the said OA, the Tribunal had quashed the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the petitioners herein cancelling the entire examination and had directed DSSSB to finalise the selection process for Grade-II (DASS), post code 90/09 on the basis of the tier-I and tier-II examinations as held on 29.06.2014 and 29.03.2015.

3. Learned counsel