1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.36 OF 2008 Kant Ram Lal ...... Petitioner. V/s The Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. S.V. Marne for the Petitioner. Ms. S.V. Bharucha with Ms. A. Malhotra for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 16 th January, 2008. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. One of the reasons that has been given by the Central Administrative Tribunal for not interfering at the instance of the applicant is that the seniority list showing the same position at which the Petitioner is presently shown was published. A challenge was raised to that seniority list by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the persons who were directly recruited on ad-hoc basis. The Petitioner did not raise challenge to the seniority list at that time. After the application filed by the direct recruits was decided by the Tribunal in 2002, final seniority list was prepared on the 2 basis of principles laid down by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that, now, as the seniority list is settled as per the judgment of the Tribunal, at the instance of the Petitioner it cannot be unsettled. If the Petitioner had any grievance against the seniority list, it was for him to approach the Tribunal in 2001 itself. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We do not find any patent illegality in the reasoning given by the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3