Antony Dominic, J. This OP is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.611/09. The said OA was filed challenging Annexures A1 and A13, order dated 4/9/08 rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner against Annexure A5 provisional seniority list and provisional seniority list of Preventive Officers as on 1/1/2008 published on 18/8/08.
2. The controversy in this OP relates to the rival claims of promotees and direct recruits to the post of Preventive Officers in the Customs Department. In so far as Annexure A5 provisional seniority list is concerned, that was published in 2005, where the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.97 and according to him, he ought to have been included between Sl.Nos.6 and 7. It was objecting to that seniority list, he filed representations evidenced by Annexures A6, A7 and A8, which were rejected by Annexure A1 order dated 4/9/2008. It was in the meanwhile that Annexure A13 provisional seniority list as on 1/1/2008 was published, where he was included at Sl.No.90 and his claim is that he ought to have been included between Sl.Nos.1 and 2. The above grievance led him to file OA, which came to be dismissed by Ext.P1 order dated 12/11/2010.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Reading of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has heavily relied on OM No.20011/1/2006-Estt.(D) dated 3rd of March, 2008 and rejected the case of the petitioner on the basis that the OM was not challenged.
5. During the course of the hearing, our attention was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. N.R.Parmar {(2012) 13 SCC 340} where the Apex Court had occasion to deal with the aforesaid OM dated 3/3/2008 and explained the scope of the said OM. Since the Tribunal did not have the benefit of adverting to the above judgment of the Apex Court, considering the nature of the controversy, we feel it is only appropriate that the case should be re-examined by the Tribunal duly adverting to the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. In order to enable the Tribunal to do so, we set aside Ext.P1 order in OA No.611/09 and remit the matter back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench for re-consideration of the matter as above.
OP(CAT) is disposed of accordingly. It is clarified that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the controversy and it is entirely for the Tribunal to deal with the issues in accordance with law. We also clarify that, if the parties so desire, it would be open to them to file additional pleadings before the Tribunal.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE