A party cannot claim ignorance of judicial decisions when there is sufficient public notice of court proceedings, especially when they are familiar with judicial processes.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against a series of orders, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"].

2. The principal grievance of the petitioner concerns his purported "illegal downgrading and supersession". The petitioner had assailed this decision of the respondents by filing an original application before the Tribunal. This application was registered as O.A. No. 3526/2011.

2.1. The aforementioned O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30.09.2011. The petitioner, being dissatisfied, carried the matter further by way of a writ petition before this Court i.e., W.P.(C) No. 8380/2011. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.07.2012, whereby the Court, with the consent of counsel of the parties, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a detailed hearing. It is because the matter had been remitted, that the Tribunal passed the order dated 28.02.2014, whereby the petitioner's O.A. was dismissed.

3. The petitioner claims that he was unaware of the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Tribunal, and therefore, was making representations to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) between 2014 and 2018.

3.1. It is also the petitioner's case that it was only when the petitioner applied to the Tribunal on 29.11.2018 for issuance of the certified copy of the order dated 28.02.2014, that he received information with regard to the fact that the judgement in O.A. No. 3526/2011, upon remand, had been passed on 28.02.2014.

3.2. This assertion is made in the review application dated 13.02.2019 filed by the petitioner with the Tribunal. We may also note that it is averred by the petitioner that although via communication dated 27.03.2017 addressed to him by MHA, he was informed about the disposal of the O.A., however, due to lack of clarity as to the contents of the said communication, he carried the impression that the reference made therein was to the earlier order dated 30.09.2011, whereby the O.A. was dismissed in the first instance. (See Annexure-P/23)

3.2(a). This assertion made by the petitioner, to say the least, is incredulous as, after the O.A. was dismissed in the first instance on 30.09.2011, at the behest of the petitioner, this Court via order dated 24.07.2012 passed in W.P.(C) 8380/2011, as noticed above, had remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. Therefore, the reference in MHA's letter dated 23.07.2017 could only have been to the subsequent dismissal of the O.A., via order dated 28.02.2014.

3.3. The petitioner, having received certified copy of the aforementioned order on 16.01.2019, filed a review petition against the order dated 28.02.2014, before the Tribunal. This review petition was dismissed on 12.07.2019. A perusal of the order dated 12.07.2019 shows that the petitioner was not present on that date. We are told that a practice obtains in the Tribunal, whereby review petitions are decided via circulation and hence the petitioner was not shown as present when the review petition was taken up by Tribunal for disposal.

3.4. Be that as it may, the petitioner moved an application for restoration of his review petition, which came up before the concerned Bench on 04.10.2019. The order passed by the concerned Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows:

"MA No.2809/2019