Hanjura, J.

1. Impugned in this petition is the defensibility and pregnability of the judgment dated 21st of September, 2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh, (Camp Court, Jammu), in case titled ‘S.K. Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.’, bearing OA No. 061/00355/2017.

2. In adumbrating and analyzing the facts leading to the filing of this petition, it needs must be said that the Central Administrative Tribunal, has given a vivid account of the facts in the judgment assailed in this petition. These are that the petitioner is the senior most Indian Police Service (IPS Officer) of J&K, belonging to the 85 batch, whereas Shri S.P. Vaid, IPS – respondent No.4, belongs to the 86 batch of IPS. The petitioner, it is stated, was empaneled as ADG with 1985 batch officers by the Government of India, while as the respondent No.4 was dropped and was not empaneled as such with his batchmates of the year 1986. The petitioner, it is stated, was illegally superseded by the respondent No.4, who is junior to him and he has been appointed by the official respondents as DGP (HoPF) vide order dated 28th of December, 2016, which is contrary to the law and which has the effect of bypassing the seniority. The petitioner, before passing of the impugned judgment, filed an OA bearing No. 061/00069/2017 before the CAT, Chandigarh, challenging the vires of the order of the appointment of the respondent No.4, in which, by an order dated 24th of January, 2017, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide his representation dated 4th of January, 2017 by a speaking/reasoned order. In compliance thereof, the representation filed by him was considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 23rd of February, 2017, a copy of which is attached to the file. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the legality of the said order before the CAT, Chandigarh, on the grounds, inter alia, that the selection of respondent No. 4 as DGP (HoPF), who is junior to him, was made without following proper procedure and the law of the land, in a totally opaque manner to help him, giving a goby to the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Civil writ petition No.310/1996, titled Prakash Singh versus Union of India and others decided on 22nd of September, 2006 and the J&K Business Rules. The petitioner alleged that the Chief Secretary, being the Cabinet Secretary, was required to issue a speaking order about the deliberations carried out in the Cabinet. The rules of business of preparing the Cabinet Note of Memorandum, are also stated to have been ignored by the respondents.

3. The CAT, Chandigarh, after taking an overall view of the matter, determined the petition of the petitioner by directing that all important issues pleaded and urged by the petitioner in the OA have already been considered and decided by the competent authority in the right perspective and, therefore, there are no reasons, much less cogent, to interfere in the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4 as DGP (HoPF), J&K State, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The CAT, Chandigarh, further held that in the light of the aforesaid pragmatic reasons, there is no merit in the OA, which entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. The petitioner did not find favour with the judgment of the CAT, Chandigarh, and filed this petition before the Court, the nitty gritty of which is that the respondent No.4 came to be selected and appointed as DGP (HoPF) of J&K State. The petitioner challenged his appointment/selection in the OA No. 061/00355/2017 before the CAT, Chandigarh, (Camp Office Jammu), on the grounds, inter alia, that the order had been issued in violation of the J&K Business Rules buttressed with the directions extended by the Apex Court in the case of “Prakash Singh v. Union of India & Ors., besides being arbitrary, i.e. without considering the eligible candidates and also by selecting a person, who was ineligible fo