, Orders IN TIIE HIGE COIJRT OF DEI,HI AT I\EW DELHI cw 3611/2003 UOI THR. G.M.NORHTERN nrufWeY ..... Petitiroer Througf Mr.H.K.Gangwani, Advocate versus S.ILSHANDIL &ORS. ..... Respordent Thrcugh Mr.KN R.Pifl ai, Advocate '..;' ," CCIRAI[: IIONtsLE MR JUSTICE BS.. KEAI{ HON'BLE IVIR. JUSJICE MI.]KT]L MUDGAL ORD ER 20.01.2004 ,: hdvate respondents 1 to 3 flled o.A,. No2l6lMl00r ddning promodon to the post of Chtef Ofrcer Supertntondent (COS) tn the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 4galnst three avallable posts from amongst those wno wle -t holdfttg the post of OS Grade-I for whlch the criterlon was senlority-cunru suitabtlity. Thelr case was that senlortty Ist which was ltkely to be rellcd upon by the peddoner heretn was requlred to be quashed tn r&w of the Suprenre court'sJudgment in '.Allt glngh flt) vssratc of Pu4Jab',ILlggg (?l 1s3,. lhtt posidon was acsepted by the petlttonerr as per tmprigned order ry*g by thb THbunal. Naturally thereforie Tlibunal pursuant to acceftanoe of t}is posldon by peddonens and lnrefereere to ldendcal cas{es dedded byitinOJ,Jng rniflr1, and 2?88/2{101 dertdcd on 13o Novenrber, 2{f01 dlrocted the pedtlonprs t6Jffi the seniority llst on A-1 by keeplng tn vtew t.he dedslon of the sopo.u"c*";i'f;; SHRI SHYAM SALES OZO3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified { Sr. No. Orders and then lnitiate the selecdon prooess wlthtn three rnonths. It appears that meanwhlle 85n Consdhrtton Arnendment along wlth Rallway lnstrrocdonsrclrnrlar datcd E3.2ll02 were challenged ln gW Z3gy1ZqqZ before the Eon'ble Suprenre Coufi in which by way of interim anangement an order of status quo was passed on 11.112002. Pur:suant thereto petldoners fllcd a revlew applicadon l.o.17612.002. The Tribunal by funpugncd order datq0 l7s.2frO3dlsmissed the revlew applicadon on the ground that thcre was no unrc" apparent on the faoe of its earller order d.ated Z!Js,?.At0Z, . , ' I . l,;,J1,": \ ,t ..,.:'.,,,uti'r]':. t The Pefldoners challenge thts ln tlre present*rit pettddx. The#;{$? . ,,, ,tl;;.j ls that consequent upon status quo order passcd by the Suprernc Court,in C,W 2i4,f2002on 11.112002, they cottld not rre-cast the senlorlty ltst of the contcnlens ' ,r t-t 'l ln the catgory of olflce superturendent and ln the flght of AIt srngh-Iri.;*" as it wouH tantarnount to non-conrpllance wlth the Suprerne Court order. Notlce of ttris pedtlon was lssued to respondents on 15.7.2003 and the operatlon of the impugned rrlbunal order was staycd on that date. r Respondents 1-3 who were appllcants before the Trtbunrl are represented by hrh.Plllal, who subnritted that petltions had re-ctst the sentorlty list purnrant to the Tribunal order ln OA. 2:n9n00.1- and had also acoeptcd the posldon ln that re-cast llst was required to be quashed ln thc facc of Supreme courtJudgment ln {fltsrngh's case. rravlng done that they couH not now o*il their Inability to do so by complianae of the lnpugncd rHbunal's order.' Mr.Gangwrnl, counsol for peddoner erplatns that the earllcr actlon taken bg. petltloners was prlor ln polnt of drre to the status quo orders p*.d,,,,pi,.,:,_l sHRtsHyAM SALESEJd supreme court order dated 11.11.2002. That belng so, .rtre dcem lt appf'6p#Afi Sr. No. Orders to dlspose of thls pedtlon by provldlng as u:rder:- .'*t impugncd order dated 29,52,002 of T?lbunal shall remaln In abeyance and shall await the outcome of the Suprrerne Court declslon ln CW ?.34121002. In case CW 23'{2002!s allowcd, THbunaI ordershall revtve and wlll be subJect to remedles to be taken by the pardes trrerearteil JA]\IUARY 20,2004 mg _r MTJKTTL MUDGAL;J trrJ , tq,,, : *r;iLi;li ' ..i ,'-. ..', fii.t.:j::1..{;;r .'t f SHRISHYAM SALES 02.03