Ramachandra Menon , J.

Common order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 794/2007, 795/2007, 38/2008, 51/2008, 125/2008 and 2008/2008 is under challenge in six Original Petitions [O.P. (CAT) Nos. 3096, 3797, 3097, 3205 of 2011, 214 of 2012 and 3192 of 2011 respectively] preferred by the applicants in the O.As, whereby the O.A.s came to be dismissed, following the course pursued by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal and accepting the version of the High Level Committee appointed by the Tribunal that there was no excess reservation prior to 10.02.1995, to have re-fixed the seniority in terms of the verdict passed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1999 SC 347 = (1999) 7 SCC 209 (hereinafter referred to as Ajit Singh -II case)].

2. It is contended that the Tribunal, however ignored the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on 01.05.2007 in O.A. Nos. 289 of 2000 and connected cases. The verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 751/2006 dated 22.09.2009 is under challenge at the instance of both, the applicants and the respondent/Railways. The challenge raised by the Railways is projected in W.P.(C) No. 24069 of 2010, whereas the grievance of the applicants, to the extent they are aggrieved, is raised in O.P. (CAT) No. 190 of 2011. Since common issues are involved, all these cases are dealt with together and heard accordingly.

3. Mr. Govinda Swami and Mr. Hariraj addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioners/applicants in the concerned cases; whereas the version of Railways was put forth by Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, Sri. Tojan J. Vathikulam and Smt. Sumathi Dandapani.

4. The sum and substance of the case projected by the applicants is that, by virtue of the 'vacancy based roster' followed by the Railways, there was accelerated promotion in the case of SC/ST, resulting in excess reservation, despite the law declared to have 'post based roster' as per the verdict passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in J.C. Malik and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [1978 (1) SLR 845] and the subsequent categoric declaration made by the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 1371 = (1995) 2 SCC 745]; Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 448 = (1995) 6 SCC 684 (herein after referred to as Ajit Singh - I case)]; Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1999 SC 347 = (1999) 7 SCC 715 (herein after referred to as Ajit Singh II- case)] and M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India [AIR 2007 SC 71 = (2006) 8 SCC 212]. According to the applicants, the position had to be reworked in tune with the specific direction given by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court and the promotions effected upto 10.02.1995 [date of the judgment in Sabharwal's case] had to be re-worked and the beneficiaries of the excess reservation [though were not to be reverted] had to be fixed at appropriate level, protecting the seniority of the general candidates in the lower category.

5. As pointed out already, these O.As. were filed [O.A. No. 794 of 2007 and connected cases] projecting a common grievance before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed as per Ext. P1 order dated 29.03.2011. O.P. [CAT] No. 3096 of 2011 and connected cases [6 in number] have been preferred by the applicants, being aggrieved of the interference declined by the Tribunal, whereby the stand of the Railways that there was no excess reservation beyond the quota provided for SC/ST as found out by the High Level Committee appointed by the Tribunal, vide Ext. P9 [Annexure R4] came to be accepted. The aforesaid verdict was followed by the Tribunal in the subsequent batch of Original Applications filed by the claimants seeking for similar relief [O.A. Nos. 793 of 2007, 36, 39, 43 and 130 of 2008]; but they came to be dismissed as per order dated 06.01.2014, which is under challenge at the instance of the applicants in O.A. No. 793 of 2007 and O.A. 43