The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's fate in respect of joining other Services was sealed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and he was given liberty only to raise the issue in respect of seniority alone. The petitioner's resignation from CISF while on probation and not being a member of CISF renders the issue of adjudication of seniority in CISF irrelevant.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ. - The present writ petition is arising out of the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, O.A. No. 1744/2007, dismissing the Original Application preferred by the writ petitioner claiming appointment in Group 'A'/ Group 'B' of the Central Civil Services as well as rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority.

2. Facts of the case reveals that the petitioner before this Court participated in the Civil Services Examination, 1996 - which was conducted by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and was not able to achieve a berth in all of the services notified by the UPSC.

3. The petitioner came before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and the same was registered as OA No. 294/1998. The Original Application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 03.05.1999.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 3561/1999, and the petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this court by judgement dated 10.09.2022, and thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Union Of India that is Civil Appeal No. 5505-5507/2003. The SLP was decided on 05.04 2006.

5. The Supreme Court directed the Union Of India to make allocation of service to the petitioner within a period of one month, and thereafter as the order was not complied within one month a Contempt Petition was preferred i.e. Contempt Petition (C) No. 13/2007.

6. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the Department of Personnel and Training allocated Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) to the petitioner as well as to one more person namely Anil Kumar who was a writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3569/1999 (Who had appeared in Civil Services Exam of 1994).

7. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was allocated to CISF, he did not join and sought extension from time to time, and also prayed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking allocation to any other Group 'A' Service failing which to DANIPS, Group 'B'. No relief was granted to the petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of appointment to Group 'A' service or allocation to DANIPS, and the Contempt Petition was dismissed.

8. The Supreme Court while dismissing the Contempt Petition vide order dated 21.09.2007 granted liberty to file Original Application before the Tribunal only in respect of appointment and seniority and other benefits in CISF. The petitioner - on account of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has preferred O.A. No. 1774/2007 praying for the following reliefs:

'(a) Direct the Respondents to grant pay scale, seniority and status of the other recruits of CSE, 1996 to the Applicant in view of its earlier dated 02/03/2007 in O.A.No. 216/2004;and

(b) direct the Respondent No. 1 to allocate ay other Group 'A' service or DANIPS Group 'B' in which there are vacancies to be filled through CSE, 1996; the same being of higher preferences of the Applicant and the same would be in the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 550; and

(c) grant all other consequential benefits as permissible'

9. The tribunal has dismissed the Original Application, and the order dismissing Original Application, is the subject matter in the present writ petition.

10. This court has heard learned counsels for the parties at length, and perused the records. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner had appeared in Civil Services Examination, 1996, and was declared successful. However, he was not granted appointment based upon interpretation of Rule 16 of the Civil Services Examinations Rules, 1996 by the respondents.

11. The petitioner being aggrieved by non-grant of appointment preferred an Original Application before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application No. 294 of 1998 vide judg