CR 5931/1998 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) MR. A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY CJ (Acting) The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Central Administrat ive Tribunal dismissing his review application against the earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 15.9.1993. The writ petitioner joined as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in the Govt. Medical Store Depot, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, on 30. 03.1971. Seniority list was prepared in the year 1971 which was revised on 13.12 .1978. Aggrieved thereby, one Abani Kanta Das approached this Court by way of wr it petition which was transferred to the learned CAT and which was disposed of b y the order dated 05.06.1986 thereby restoring the seniority list of 1971 on the ground that affected parties were not given opportunity of being heard before i ssuing the revised seniority list in the year 1978. Against the said order, a review application and a writ petition were filed befo re the CAT on the plea that the said review applicant and the writ petitioner we re not heard in the matter by the learned CAT as they had not been impleaded as party. To the said proceedings, the petitioner herein was also impleaded as a pa rty. After due consideration, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 15.9.1993 recalled its order dated 5.6.1986 and restored the revised senio rity as per order dated 13.12.1978. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review petition before the CAT on the ground th at he could not appear at the time of hearing as he was under the impression tha t his case would be properly safeguarded by the appearing parties. This plea has not been accepted by the learned CAT with the following finding : 5. On the revival contentions of the parties it is now to be seen whether t he present applications are maintainable. We have perused the order. It appears that the revised seniority list dated 13.12.1978 was never challenged by the pre sent applicants. Besides, from the records it appears that notice were duly serv ed on both the review applicants. Therefore, the contention of the review applic ant in Review Application No.11/93 that at the relevant time he was on deputatio n is contrary to the record. Besides, it was the duty of the applicants to chall enge the revised seniority list dated 13.12.1978 at the appropriate time. Theref ore, in our opinion the present applicants cannot challenge the said seniority l ist dated 13.12.1978 as at this stage the said list has reached its finality. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It remains undisputed that the petitioner had been duly served and was a party t o the proceedings. Once it is so, the Tribunal was justified in declining to rev iew its order dated 15.9.1993 on the ground that the petitioner was not heard. O nce the petitioner was duly served, it was for him to put in appearance and pres ent his viewpoint. It was not a case where the petitioner was deprived of opport unity of presenting his case. This being the undisputed position, we do not find any error in the view taken b y the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.