The judgment in OA No.165/2013 shall not form a precedent for any other case, and the court declined to interfere with the tribunal's order regarding the practical training undergone by the respondent.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)--The challenge in this petition is to an order dated July 08, 2023, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal', in short) in C.P. No.17/2021 in O.A. no. 549/2013, whereby the Tribunal closed the Contempt Petition by holding in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 as under:

"6. This case presents some peculiar features' applicant relied upon the outcome of OA No.165/2013 decided by this Tribunal which, in turn, was the subject matter of writ petition at that time. In that OA, the Tribunal observed that the training which the applicant therein has undergone, can be treated as holding good for the post. It was almost an interpretative the process. Before the Hon'ble High Court, it was strongly urged that the Tribunal cannot stipulate new qualification altogether. Though that argument weighed with the Hon'ble High Court, no interference was made with the order in the OA mostly on the grounds that the respondent therein was a physically handicapped person. What is more important is that the Hon'ble High Court made it clear that the order in the OA shall not form a precedent for any other case. In this scenario, we cannot hold that the respondents have committed any contempt of court.

7. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. The petitioners had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 549/2013 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal on October 16, 2018, wherein the following has been stated:

"This OA is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.08.2012 and direct the respondents to appoint the applicants herein to the post of Ayurvedic Compounder with all consequential benefits.

2. We hear Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyanendra Singh, Shri Predeep Singh Tomar for Ms. Sangita Rai and Ms. Anita Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The issue pertaining to the eligibility criteria of appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Compounder was dealt with in detail by this Tribunal in OA No.165/2013. The respondents filed Writ Petition(C) No.3766/2017 and that the same is pending before the Delhi High Court.

4. We, therefore, dispose of the O.A directing that depending upon the outcome of the Writ Petition(C) No.3766/2017, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders as regards the applicants herein.

5. MA, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

3. The issue primarily is whether the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Compounder. The Tribunal was of the view that the said issue which was decided by the Tribunal in O.A. No.165/2013 filed by Dr. Pradeep Kumar Goswami, which order became the subject matter of W.P.(C) 3766/2017, was not interfered with and this Court has stated that the judgment shall not form a precedent. Suffice to state this Court while deciding the said writ petition has stated as under:

"xxxxxxxxxx

The same was also assailed by the respondent before the Tribunal in O.A. in question. The Tribunal found that the respondent has obtained Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery qualification from the University of Delhi in the year 1995. The same is of five and a half year regular degree programme, which also entails practical training for two years which was undergone by the respondent in the years 1993-94 to 1994-95. The respondent is a physically challenged candidate and considering the fact that he was a qualified Ayurvedic Doctor holding a Bachelor of Degree in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery, the Tribunal held that he could not be said to be less qualified for the post of Ayurvedic Compounder. The practical training undergone by the respondent for two years while taking Bachelor of degree course in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery was treated to be sufficient experience in terms of the advertisement. Though, counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that the tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the respondent does not