THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.26215 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Chief Signal and Telecommunications Engineer, the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Secunderabad Division, filed the instant Writ Petition assailing the record of proceedings dated 09.09.2011 recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (“the Tribunal” for brevity), in CP.No.53 of 2011 in O.A.No.164 of 2008, which reads as under. “Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents seeks two more weeks time, which is finally granted and if by the next date i.e. 28.09.2011 the order is not implemented, the respondents 1 to 3 shall be personally present in the Court as the O.A. was disposed of on 23.07.2009 and even the review petition was dismissed in 2010 and the alleged writ petition is pending for admission for months, which was dismissed for non-prosecution even pending admission and allegedly restored subsequently. Post the matter on 28.09.2011.” We heard the Standing Counsel for Railways. He relies on Pallav Sheth v. Custodian[1] and submits that Contempt Petition No.53 of 2011 filed by the respondent (hereinafter, the applicant) under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Tribunals Act), read with Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity), is barred by limitation; the learned Tribunal could not have taken cognizance of the same; and therefore, the impugned proceedings are unsustainable. We are afraid, this submission is wholly misconceived and cannot be countenanced. Before recording the reasons for this, we may, in the following paragraph, point out the background of the case. The applicant is a Junior Engineer, Grade-I, in South Central Railways. In pursuance of a notification, dated 31.07.2007, calling for selection of 32 posts of Section Engineers, he appeared for the written examination held on 29.08.2007. His name was not included in the selection list. He sought information regarding the marks obtained by him, in vain. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.164 of 2008 seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to promote him to the post of Section Engineer. Inter alia, the respondents contended that as per the relevant Rules, a candidate is required to secure a minimum 60% marks to qualify in each paper. The applicant has secured 74.5% in paper-I and 52.5% in paper-II and therefore, he was declared unsuitable by the Selection Board. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the petitioners having regard to para-219 (g) of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, which stipulated that even if a candidate secures 60% marks in overall aggregate, it would be considered as sufficient compliance with the Rule. Accordingly, by an order dated 23.07.2009, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Section Engineer treating him as a candidate securing 63.5% marks in the written examination and in case he gets 60% of the aggregate after completion of selection process, he shall be empanelled for promotion. The order has not been implemented. The petitioners, however, filed a review application being R.A.No.15 of 2009 placing reliance on the instructions dated 07.11.2007 issued by the Railway Board where under, 60% minimum marks in each paper was the qualifying bench mark. The Tribunal, having noticed that the notification was issued on 31.07.2007 and the written test was conducted on 29.08.2007, came to the conclusion that the subsequent Railway Board instructions issued on 07.11.2007 have no application to the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 31.07.2007. The Tribunal, accordingly, dismissed the review application on 16.04.2010. About a year thereafter, as the order was not implemented, the applicant filed C.P.No.53 of 2011. From the reading of the order, it appears the Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways sought time for implementing the order. Sharing indulgence, the learned Tribunal adjourned the matter to 28.09.2011 observing that the orders of the Tribunal shall be implemented or else, the petitioners shall be personally present in the Court on 28.09.2011. In this background of the case, the question of limitation to question the applicability of Section 20 of the Act, 1971, does not arise. It is only at the stage of preliminary hearing and the Tribunal has not even ordered the notice of contempt. If there is any valid defence, it is always open to the petitioners to raise before the Tribunal itself. We are convinced that this Writ Petition is filed only to pre-empt the Tribunal from exercising their jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Tribunals Act read with Sections 10 to 12 of the Act. This Court cannot issue an injunction or a Mandamus, which would prevent a statutory authority from exercising its jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 20th September 2011 RRB [1] AIR 2001 SC 2763 (1)