1. - The original applicant has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

2. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the petitioner 'the employee" and the respondents No. 1 to 3 collectively the 'railway administration'.

3. The brief facts leading to the controversy are thus :

(i) The employee was appointed on 30.11.1974 as casual labour as Mechanic/Driver in the scale of 260-400 (RP) in Kota Division of the railways.

(ii) The scale of 260-400 was subsequently revised to 950- 1500.

(iii) The employee was granted temporary status on 1.1.1981.

(iv) The employee is said to have passed the trade test on 10.10.1986.

(v) According to the petitioner, vide Railway Board's instructions contained in their letter dated 24.2.1979, the vacancies in the scale of Artisan grade are required to be filled in on percentage basis namely; 25% by open market candidates; 25% from amongst the serving employees in skilled and unskilled categories having the prescribed qualifications and 50% from amongst rankers on seniority-cum-sutiability basis. Based on that, it is the case of the employee that having already qualified the trade test on the Construction Project Site, he was not required to undergo trade test again for suitability in open line. However, he was not regularised on the post of Driver (Group-C).

(vi) He filed Original Application (192/94) before the Central Administrative Tribunal for his regularisation.

(vii) On 30.6.1994, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur disposed of OA 192/94 directing the railway administration to consider the case of regularisation of the employee within a period of three months in accordance with the rules and equity. The Tribunal further observed that in case the juniors to the employee have been regularised, the employee would be entitled for regularisation from the date his junior/s were regularised.

(viii) The Employee's claim for his regularisation in Group C was not accepted and instead by the order dated 29.5.1997, the employee was regularised on the post of Gangman (Group-D), that led the employee to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order dated 29.5.1997 and for his regularisation in Group-C post (Driver) Scale 950-1500.

(viii) The Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of this OA 231/1997 on 31.7.1997 whereby the Tribunal gave direction to the railway administration that if the employee was found senior enough to be eligible for consideration and appointment or the post of Driver and has proved to show that he has passed the trade test, he should be considered for regularisation on the post of Driver in accordance with item (ii) of para 3 of Railway Board's Circular dated 9.4.1997 and other rules applicable subject to availability of vacancy. The Tribunal made it clear that this direction shall not affect the rights of Anwar Ahmed who has been regularised in accordance with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal further directed that before undertaking this exercise, the railway administration shall draw up a common seniority list in this regard.

(ix) The employee is said to have made representation to the railway administration for his regularisation in Group-C in the light of the order dated 31.7.1997 but instead the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 1.10.1997 came to be issued regularising his services on the post of Gangman (Group-D). That necessitated filling of OA No. 501/1997. The employee prayed therein for quashing the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 4.10.1997 and direction to the railway administration to regularise him on the post of Driver-cum-Machanic in the pay scale of 950-1500 (Group-C) with all consequential benefits.

(x) In opposition to the OA 501/1997, inter-alia, the railway administration set up the defence that the employee has already agitated his claim for regularisation on the post of Driver (Group-C) in OA No. 231/1997 which was decided