The judgment established the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the importance of timely filing of petitions.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

This appeal is filed by the Railway administration, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petition filed by T.M. Marimuthu, respondent herein, and directed the railway administration to pass the consequential orders and paying all the monetary benefits due to him within ninety days.

2. The writ petition was against the order passed by the railway administration, de-reserving the posts of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes by Lr. No.P(G)/532/I-81 dated 11-5-1981. The writ petition was filed in the year 1995. It was inter alia contended in the writ petition that the writ-petitioner, who is belonging to Scheduled Caste, was working in the railways and had put in three decades of service and the railway administration had been de-reserving the posts entitled for the Scheduled Caste/Sceheduled Tribe candidates even though meritorious Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were available for such posts. The petitioner stated that he had completed eighteen years of service in Group B yet he was not promoted to Group A service. Even though as per the policy of the railway administration, separate rosters were to be maintained, they were not so maintained. It was pointed out by the writ petitioner that he was promoted in the year 1979 to Group B services on ad hoc basis and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Senior Scale) on 26-8-1983 and though he had failed in the viva voce test for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, he was placed fourth out of the six reserved posts and in spite of this, his services were not regularised and, thereby he could not be further promoted. He also took exception to the exercise of de-reservation of the posts which was taken up in the year 1981. He then complained that though he had worked on ad hoc basis for five years and earned good name yet, he was not promoted to the next higher post. It was further pointed out that the services of M/s.A.S. Raman and Appukuttan, who were juniors to the writ petitioner, were regularised in Group B services without passing the written test and that their promotion was throughout upheld up to the Supreme Court. The writ petitioner, therefore, had prayed that that decision should have been acted upon to regularise him also. It was stated in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as follows:

“I state that I had approached the Administrative Tribunal in 1990 and my application was dismissed nearly after three years saying that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and hence I am before this Hon’ble Court.”

3. The railway administration had opposed this writ petition on various grounds including lack of jurisdiction on the part of the High Court. It was pointed out that the exercise of de-reservation of the posts was done as enough number of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were not available to fill up the reserved vacancies and the proposal for de-reservation for gazetted cadre were checked and approved by the Railway Board. It was further pointed out that only after satisfying that the zonal administration had taken every effort to find a suitable Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate and had failed in its attempt, the posts came to be de-reserved.

4. As regards the writ petitioner, it was pointed out that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (B Group cadre) on ad hoc basis with effect from 19-1-1977 and the petitioner thereafter appeared for regular selection for the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1978 and again in May 1981 but failed to get selected. He was ultimately regularised as Assistant Engineer on 18-9-1981 after passing the selection held during September, 1981. It was, therefore, pointed out that the petitioner’s seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer counted only from the date of his regularisation on 18-9-1981. It was specifically pointed out in the counter that the petitioner was trying to rake up the issue afte