The court emphasized the necessity of consistency in judicial decisions, allowing a review to rectify an oversight that led to conflicting judgments.

JUDGMENT AMIT RAWAL, J.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed O.A.No.604/2023 vide order dated 27.09.2024. However, review has been filed by the Union of India, as certain documents, particularly the order of the Bangalore Bench, has not been taken into consideration. The Tribunal, vide order under review dated 09.01.2025 in R.A.No.19/2024 passed the following order and restored the OA:

“This is a Review Application filed by the respondents in the Original Application seeking to review the order dated 27.09.2024 in the Original Application.

2. The of the crux arguments of the Review Applicants/respondents in the Original Application is that at the time of final hearing of the O.A., copy of order of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal - Annexure-RA2 in OA 632/2023 was placed before this Tribunal. But the Court failed to make mention about the said decision, nor relied on it and allowed the O.A. taking a contra view. According to the Review Applicants, it is a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of equal strength, whereunder the O.A. seeking self same relief was dismissed by the Bangalore Bench. Challenge in both the O.A. was one and the same. This Tribunal which is a subsequent co-ordinate Bench of equal strength, instead of taking a contra view should have referred the matter to a larger bench as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court In Union of India & others v. S.K.Kapoor [ (2011) 4 SCC 589 ). That has resulted in rendering two decisions of co-ordinate Benches of equal strength on the same set of facts.

3. According to the petitioners, such contradictory decisions have pan-India applicability. Moreover, such conflicting views by co-ordinate Benches have resulted in dichotomous situation. Therefore, if results are declared as directed by this Tribunal, in the backdrop of the decision of the Bangalore Bench, It may result in further complications.

4. The respondents in the Review Applicants, who are the Original Applicants have disputed the contentions and sought for dismissing the Review Application. According to them, in pursuance to the order passed by this Tribunal, the official respondents in the Original Application have circulated a draft Recruitment Rules for PS Group-B cadre inviting comments from the stakeholders. Annexure-R1 would clarify the actual intention of the department. Referring to Annexure-R2 it is submitted after Annexure-RA1 order the respondents have withdrawn Writ Petition No. 15184/2024 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. Referring to Gopal Krishanindly v. Fifth Additional District Judge, Kanpur [AIR 1981 Allahabad 300] and Indo- Swiss Time Ltd. v. Umrao [AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 213] it is submitted that when there are two conflicting judgments, the latter should prevail. The contention that Annexure-RA1 order was passed without referring to RA2 is factually incorrect. Through documents these respondents could show that the persons who sought permission for attending the examination were permitted to appear for the examination. Such contentions were not raised before the Bangalore Bench. In fine, the Review Application is sought is dismissed.

5. We heard learned counsel on both sides.

6. The argument of the Review Applicants, who are the respondents in the Original Application, is that even though Annexure- RA2 order of the Bangalore Bench dated 07.06.2024 was produced before this Tribunal on 30.08.2024, the Tribunal did not make any reference about it in the Annexure-RA1 Order, which is illegal, which resulted in rendering conflicting decisions by co-equal Benches. 7. There cannot be denial of the fact that Annexure-RA2 order was produced before this Tribunal by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel during the course of argument and had pointed out that the Bangalore Bench had dismissed the O.A., whereby correctness of cancellation of the notification and issue of a fresh notification was upheld. But this