The judgment of the High Court remained binding, and the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not lead to merger. A review is maintainable even after dismissal.

Kurian Joseph, J.

Whether dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court amounts to merger of order/decree passed by the High Court, is the main question arising for consideration in this case. Incidentally, we may also deal with the question as to whether even after dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, the remedy by way of review is available. A third question, which has to be dealt, is whether the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal can ignore the decision of the High Court, rendered in a case challenging the order passed either by one Member or a Bench of two members and/or for that matter a still larger Coram of the Tribunal.

SHORT FACTS:

2. Whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the ground that he does not have the prescribed educational qualification for the post, is the simple issue on facts. That issue in principal was decided in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure A/2, order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dated 20th November, 2002 in O.A. No. 1062/HP/2001, when the petitioner was denied the 1st Assured Career Progression, by a Coram consisting of Vice-Chairman and another Member. It was directed that irrespective of the educational qualification under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, the benefit is to be granted. That was challenged by the Union of India before this Court in C.W.P. No. 349 of 2003. By Annexure A-3, judgment dated 02.07.2008, it was held, agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal, that it was not necessary to possess the prescribed educational qualification for grant of Assured Career Progression. The Union of India pursued the matter before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 17131-17132 of 2008. There was delay. As per Annexure A/4, order dated 06.01.2009, the Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P.. The order reads as follows:

“Delay Condoned.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, this order may not be treated as a precedent.”

3. When the petitioner was denied the second Assured Career Progression on completion of 24 years by the department, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench by filing O.A. No. 638 of 2009. That was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.07.2010. The Tribunal took a strange view that the Full Bench of the Tribunal had subsequently taken the view that the incumbent should possess the prescribed educational qualification, the same being eligibility criteria. It has also been held that the finding of the High Court stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court. Still further, it was also held that the earlier view of the Tribunal taken by a Coram of two Members stood overruled by the subsequent view taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. For the purpose of easy reference, we may extract the relevant portion of the impugned order appearing at paragraph No.

“13. In so far as reliance placed by the applicants on the earlier decision of this Tribunal in their own case, as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and then by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, admittedly that was a decision taken by Division Bench of the Tribunal earlier to the Full Bench decision in the case of Krishna Kumar & Others (supra). Once the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal has come, the decision in earlier cases of the applicants have lost relevance and the view taken in those cases stands over ruled. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly mentioned regarding those two decisions that the same may not be treated as a precedent. Meaning thereby the issue was left open and even findings of the Hon’ble High Court stood merged in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

4. It is in the above factual background, it has become necessary to deal with the legal position regarding merger and binding value of the judgment of the High Court on the Tribunal.

5. The petition is filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of