JUDGMENT Majumdar, J.: Consequent upon a series of orders passed by this Court in F.M.A.T. No. 144 of 1985 including an order passed by this Court on January 27, 1986 on the second application for contempt filed by the writ petitioners, a batch of officers being Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23 and 29 to the writ petition filed an application on February 19, 1986. The said batch of officers did not contest at any stage of the writ proceedings either before the Writ Court or the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court. 2. Before embarking upon the adjudication of the case, it is fit and proper for us to set out the salient features of the present case which involved a series of debate during all these days. The facts of the case, in its bearest out-line, are presented hereunder :- In the year, 1973 the writ petitioners were holding the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II on officiating basis without their being any regular selection and consequential promotion. On February 19, 1976 office Circular was issued from the Chief Personnel Officer for the purpose of formation of a panel for Class-II for the post of Assistant Engineer. It appears from the aforesaid Circular that it has been decided to form a provisional panel or Assistant Engineers, Class-II form for 25 post of which 4 posts are reserved for S. C. S. and 2 for S. T. S. and remaining 19 posts are unreserved. In the month of March, 1976 a written test was held. South Eastern Railway Administration called 138 candidates to appear in the written lest 98 candidates out of 138 candidates were found and declared qualified in the said written examination and were directed to appear in viva-voce test. On December 14 and 19, 1976 respectively the viva-voce test was held. The Chief Personnel Officer published a panel of 25 persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II. The said panel consists of A. Biswas and other being Respondent Nos 5 to 29 in the writ application. A reference may be made to office Order No. 18575 dated March 15, 1977 shows that A. Biswas and others were promoted as is indicated above. It is proper for this Court at this stage to refer to the fact that the writ petitioners and Respondent Nos. A reference may be made to office Order No. 18575 dated March 15, 1977 shows that A. Biswas and others were promoted as is indicated above. It is proper for this Court at this stage to refer to the fact that the writ petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 in the writ petition. prior to the holding of the selection test in the year, 1976, were all officiating as Assistant Engineers, Class-II on adhoc basis, but the writ petitioners were officiating post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II. The panel thus prepared by pursuant the decision of the Railway Administration made in the year, 1976 was impeached in the application filed on behalf of the writ petitioners being C. R. No. 6501(Ws) of 1978. The panel was challenged on several grounds namely, (a) the writ petitioners were selected in the written examination as well as viva voce test and found suitable but they were not taken on absorption to the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II as there did not exist sufficient vacancies. (b) The panel was not prepared correctly. The writ petitioners should have been included in the panel along with 25 persons. On March 15, 1977 a panel was published. Sri A. Biswas and others being Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 were included. On March 25, 1977 Respondents No.5 to 29 were promoted on regular basis sequel to their selection. The entire panel stands exhausted. There was no provision for anticipated vacancies for the next two years as required under the provisions of law. A batch of successful Assistant Engineers who appeared in the written test examination and viva voce test during the month of October, 1979 were not allowed to be absorbed on the ground that the panel could not be given effect to the reason of fact the interim order of injunction on the application filed by the writ petitioners was then operative. Civil Rule No. 6501(W) of 1978 came up for hearing. 3. The learned trial Judge after carefully considering the pros and cons of the entire matter came to the finding that the panel was not prepared in accordance with the Circular of the Board. The basis of the findings that the panel was prepared in vidation of the Railway Board, that the assessment was not at all made or if made, was not at all correct. The basis of the findings that the panel was prepared in vidation of the Railway Board, that the assessment was not at all made or if made, was not at all correct. The said assessment if made, is purely ad hoc and did not take into account the reality of the situation. Correct assessment of a number of vacancies was not determined as a result whereof the writ petitioners could not be absorbed. The Chief Engineer in his note dated May 3, 1979 while noticing the enlargement of the panel that took place in other railways recorded that the similar action may be taken with regard to 1977 panel with the approval of the Railway Board. 4. The learned trial Judge while disposing of the writ petition passed directions in the manner following :- "The panel of 1977 should be enlarged. The persons who have been fund suitable but were not included because of their relative seniority position and because of the limited vacancies should be included in the enlarged panel. The shall retain their inter-se seniority. After the empanelment is made in terms of the direction contained in this order, the promotion of the incumbents shall be regularised as early as possible in view of the fact that would be retiring shortly and they shall be paid all attendant benefits. Since the matter bas already been stayed, the aforesaid direcfions should be implemented and due benefits be given to the writ petitioners, added respondents and others as early as possible within four months from date." 5. In passing the aforesaid directions, the learned trial Judge reached the following conclusions :- "Under the existing Circular of the Railway Board existing and anticipated vacancies are required to be taken into account for assessment of vacancies but the panel of 1977 was prepared in violation of the Rules and the vacancies were so under-assessed that the panel was exhausted with its publication though the same was required to provide for anticipated vacancies for the next two years. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who were not within the normal zone of consideration and accordingly under Railway Board Circular were not eligible were invited in the selection and 4 of them selected." 6. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who were not within the normal zone of consideration and accordingly under Railway Board Circular were not eligible were invited in the selection and 4 of them selected." 6. While presenting the entire panel in the judgment itself, the learned trial Judge further observed as follows:- "It appears that the said panel was prepared on the basis of the seniority out of the successful candidates and not on the basis of the marks obtained. The result was that many who obtained more marks or similar marks were not included in the panel because they were not senior. Had the panel been prepared on the basis of marks obtained, many of them who bad been promoted would not have found place in the panel at all." 7. At the material times, the procedure for empanelment of successful candidates is contained in the Board's letter bearing No. E(OP)66/2/50 dated December 20, 1966 to all the General Manager (Indian Railway). The said letter dated December 20, 1966 for the sake of convenience is quoted below :- "Reference para 1(e)(v) of Board's Letter No. E(GP)61M2-49 dated 29/4/63 on the subject noted above. On further consideration the Board have decided that hereafter the successful candidates should be arranged in three groups as under:- 1. Those getting 80% and above-Outstanding. 2. Those getting between 70% & 79%-Very good. 3. Those getting between 60% & 69%-Good. The names being arranged in the order of seniority within each group." 8. The Railway Administration brought about partial modification of the existing procedure which was prevalent at the material times when the panel in question was prepared and published. In terms of 1966 Board Circular successful candidates were arranged in three groups in the manner indicated above. 1978 Board Circular provides for the successful candidates in two groups instead of three groups. 9. The relevant portion of the said D. O. dated December 8, 1978 is extracted herein-below:- "It has now been decided in partial modification of the existing procedure that, henceforth, the successful candidates will be arranged in two groups as follows :- Candidates getting 80 % and above marks outstanding candidates getting between 60% and 79% Good. The inter-se seniority of the successful candidates in their respective gradings will be maintained. It has also been decided that these orders shall be given effect from 1st January, 1979. The inter-se seniority of the successful candidates in their respective gradings will be maintained. It has also been decided that these orders shall be given effect from 1st January, 1979. In other words, the revised procedure will not be effective in the case of the selection which have already been finalised and approved by you before this date." 10. The learned trial Judge found that the panel was not prepared - in accordance with Rules. Sequel to such preparation of the panel which was found not prepared in accordance with the Circular of the Board, the writ petitioners, according to the learned trial Judge, who are found suitable could not be absorbed. The learned trial Judge also recorded that the writ petitioners have been officiating in the post of Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Class-II since 5 or 6 years prior to 1978 when this writ application was moved and they have served as Assistant Engineers more than a decade at the time when the judgment was delivered. The learned trial Judge further recorded had the panel been prepared on the basis of marks obtained, many of them who had been promoted would not have found placed in the panel at all. A person thus selected both in 1977 and 1979 as found by the learned trial Judge have been selected because of fortutious circumstances of their being senior to others. 11. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned trial Judge after recording the findings that the panel was not prepared in accordance with Board Circular of the year, 1966 refrained from setting aside the panel on the ground that the private Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 were not only promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, Class-II but some of them were further placed on the rung of promotion and thereby, they are holding higher posts. 12. Against the judgment of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was preferred. The Appeal Court presided over by M. M. Dutt, J. sitting with Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. dismissed the appeal filed by the Railway Administration. The appeal Court while dismissing the appeal held in the manner following:- (a) When after regular promotion of 25 empanelled candidates to the posts of A. E. M., Class-II the petitioners were directed to continue to officiate in the promotional posts of Assistant Engineer, Class-II then clearly no correct assessment of vacancies was made. The appeal Court while dismissing the appeal held in the manner following:- (a) When after regular promotion of 25 empanelled candidates to the posts of A. E. M., Class-II the petitioners were directed to continue to officiate in the promotional posts of Assistant Engineer, Class-II then clearly no correct assessment of vacancies was made. (b) In the matter of selection of S. C. and S. T. candidates Railway Board's Circular was not complied with and great injustice bas been caused to the appellant. (c) The Railway Administration has acted in derogation of the Railway Rules and Circulars in constituting the panel and in making assessment of vacancies including anticipated vacancies. (d) We also agree with the learned Judge that it would not be proper to upset the panel when Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 have been further promoted to higher posts. It is not desirable, in our opinion, to bring them down in their former position so that they have to again compete with the appellants. (e) The jugdment and order of the learned Judge was affirmed and the Railway Administration was directed to implements the direction of the learned trial Judge within a period of four months. 13. The learned Judge while dismissing the appeal directed the Railway Administration to implement the direction given by the learned Judge as expeditiously as possible, but not later on than four months from the date. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal against be judgment of the learned Judge, hut the said appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Appeal Court was delivered on February 25, 1985 before the expiry of the period of four months the Railway Administration came up with an application for direction/directions before this Court praying for time to implement the direction. It was, inter alia, stated in the said application that if the inter se seniority alone is to be followed as per Judgment Board's instruction in regard to gradation formula as contained in their letter No. E(GP) 66/2/50 dated 20/12/66 and E(GP) 78/2/107 dated 8/12/78 are to be ignored. 14. Railway Administration presented a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court by an order dated July 10, 1985 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 14. Railway Administration presented a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court by an order dated July 10, 1985 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The Chief Personnel Officer by Memo dated August 12, 1985 issued Circular stating, inter alia, therein that the panel of 1977 has now been enlarged to include all the mentioned 55 candidates retaining inter se seniority. Accordingly, the enlarged panel of 1977 was then published as contained in Annexure 4 under paragraph 6 of the said Circular. The enlarged panel as published under the cover of the Circular dated August 12, 1985 allowed the Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 to retain the original position in the panel under Serial Nos. 1 to 25. The inter se seniority of the writ petitioners and other successful candidates was ignored inasmuch as the writ petitioners and those other successful candidates were shown against Serial Nos. 26 to 80. The original candidates were allowed to retain their inter se seniority in the enlarged panel dated August 12, 1985 and thereby the direction of the learned trial Judge recording inter se seniority was not complied with. 15. The writ petitioners barring the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 17 by its Office Order No.579/85 dated August 23, 1985 were directed to look after the duties of senior scale pay with the special pay of Rs. 150/- in addition to their grade pay. The writ petitioners made an application on September 20, 1985 praying for release of the consequential and attendant benefit as directed by the Appeal Court in F. M. A. T. No. 3756 of 1984. Upon an application for contempt moved on behalf of the writ petitioners, M. M. Dutt, J. and Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. recorded an order dated September 27, 1985 in the manner following :- "Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents states before us that 55 persons including the writ petitioners who have been empanelled by virtue of our said judgment will be given their seniority in accordance with rules and the panel will be rearranged accordingly. Further, it is stated by Mr. Bagchi, that the consequential benefits available to the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 17 by virtue of our judgment will also be given to them by October 8, 1985." 16. Further, it is stated by Mr. Bagchi, that the consequential benefits available to the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 17 by virtue of our judgment will also be given to them by October 8, 1985." 16. The matter was again mentioned before the Appeal Court for clarification of the order dated September 20, 1985 to the effect that the seniority be given in accordance with existing rules. On October 7, 1985 the Appeal Court passed, be following order :- "By our order dated September 27, 1985 we recorded the statements of Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the respondents to the effect that fifty-five persons including the writ petitioners who had been empanelled by virtue of our judgment would be given their seniority in accordance with the Rules and the panel would be rearranged accordingly. It is made clear that the seniority will be given in accordance with the existing rules. Our order is clarified as above." 17. It is appropriate for this Court at this stage to refer that the application for contempt which came up for bearing on September 27, 1985 was disposed of by the Appeal Court in view of the statements made by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents who were served a copy of the application for contempt prior to the hearing that look place on September 27, 1985. 18. Sri S. Sitaramaswamy, the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (G), South Eastern Railway being Respondent No.3 was physically present. The learned Counsel for the Railway Administration on the instructions received from S. Sitaramaswamy admitted before this Court that the panel will be rearranged in accordance with the Rules and the consequential benefit would be given to the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 17. On October 8, 1985 respondents published a panel with a view to show that the panel has been re-arranged in the light of the order passed on September 27, 1985 and October 7, 1985. The panel said Co have been re-arranged by an order dated October 8, 1985 has not been so re-arranged in accordance with the existing Rules. 19. On October 8, 1985 respondents published a panel with a view to show that the panel has been re-arranged in the light of the order passed on September 27, 1985 and October 7, 1985. The panel said Co have been re-arranged by an order dated October 8, 1985 has not been so re-arranged in accordance with the existing Rules. 19. The writ petitioners cited an illustration in the manner following :- If the penal could have been arranged in accordance with the existing Rules, the name of Sri Nalini Ranjan Das, the Petitioner No. 1 would come to Serial No.8, but the panel was as contained in Annexure 'L' would show that the name of the writ petitioner has been placed as Serial No 35. 20. In those circumstances, the writ petitioners bad to file a second application for contempt which came up for bearing on October 11, 1985 when Mr. Bagchi, the senior Advocate made statements before the Court that 55 candidates including the writ petitioners who had been empanelled by virtue of the judgment and order passed by the Court bas been given seniority in accordance with the existing Rules. The panel will be re-arranged accordingly. It is further stated by Mr. Bagchi that the consequential benefit available to the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 17 by virtue of the judgment would also be given by October 8, 1985. Again the matter was taken up by the Appeal Court. 21. On December 20, 1985 when Mr. Bagcbi submitted that copies of the orders of the Court in appeal are required to be sent the Railway Board for taking necessary action in the matter. On the prayer of Mr. Bagchi, application for contempt was allowed to be adjourned till January 20, 1986. On January 27, 1986 the second application for Contempt came up for hearing before the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court passed an order in the manner following:- "Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents state that the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 17 Sri N. R. Das, N. N. Das Gupta and S. R. K. Rao respectively will be granted adhoc promotions in terms of our judgment and they will be granted seniority according to the rules existing on the date of the said judgment. 1, 3 and 17 Sri N. R. Das, N. N. Das Gupta and S. R. K. Rao respectively will be granted adhoc promotions in terms of our judgment and they will be granted seniority according to the rules existing on the date of the said judgment. Granting of such departmental promotion will be without prejudice to the departmental proceeding started against the Petitioners No. 1 and 17. It is further stated by N. Chakraborty that our judgment will be complied with in respect of the above three writ petitioners within a period of four weeks from date. Let the application be adjourned for six weeks from dale. Let a plain copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate for the respondents for compliance" 22. The original Respondents, Mr. A. R. Biswas and others, (for brevity "the applicants" hereafter) came up with, an application (for short the said application hereafter) sworn and affirmed on February 19, 1980 (wrongly shown January 22, 1986). 23. On February 21, 1986 Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway published revised panel rearranging the names of the writ petitioners and other candidates according to the existing Rules. 24. Both the second application for contempt and the said application filed by A. R. Biawas and 9 others were assigned to this Bench by an order passed by the learned Chief Justice on January 13, 1987. The said application filed by the applicants was taken up for hearing on February 25, 1986, when M. M. Dutt, J. and Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. passed an order to the following effect that South Eastern Railway will not take any further steps in the matter till the disposal of the said application. The applicants made a prayer to the following effect :- (a) Leave be given to your petitioners to intervene. (b) The said order dated 27th January, 1986 be clarified by expressly mentioning that it does not affect the already determined seniority of your petitioners as Assistant Engineers (Class-II). (c) If necessary, the said order dated 27th January, 1986 be modified by directing that the respondents N. R. Das, N. N. Dasgupta, S. R. K. Rao would be granted seniority according to the rules existing as on 15/3/77. (d) Operation of the said order dated 27th January, 1986 be stayed. 25. (c) If necessary, the said order dated 27th January, 1986 be modified by directing that the respondents N. R. Das, N. N. Dasgupta, S. R. K. Rao would be granted seniority according to the rules existing as on 15/3/77. (d) Operation of the said order dated 27th January, 1986 be stayed. 25. After setting out the background of the case and the direction passed by the learned trial Judge as would appear from paragraph 23 of the application affirmed on February 19, 1986 (for short the said application), the applicants made a prayer for intervention in the manner indicated above. It would appear that various paragraphs of the said application are affirmed true to knowledge of the deponent of the said application. 26. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Samarditya Pal the learned Advocate referred to and relied on Annexure 'E' to the said application. Annexure 'E' is a Memorandum dated August 12, 1985. Toe Railway Administration by the aforesaid Memorandum dated 12th August, 1985 implemented the directions contained in the order dated July 16, 1984 by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Gupta further claimed that it would appear from Annexure 'A' to the Memorandum that the directions contained in the judgment and order dated July 16, 1984 was implemented by inclusion of the names of 55 persons in the enlarged 1971 panel. The said 55 candidates were assigned the inter-se seniority after 25 candidates were already empanelled in the 1977 panel published by the office order dated March 15, 1977, 27. The writ petitioners filed the second application for contempt on the ground that the Memorandum dated August 12, 1985 did not implement the order dated July 16, 1984. Reliance on behalf to the applicants was also placed in paragraph 28 of the said application for contempt. It, inter alia, states that it would be found that while enlarging the 1977 panel the inter- se seniority has not been maintained. The names of the candidates appearing in Serial Nas.1 to 25 of the enlarged 1977 panel are the promotees whose names were published in the original panel dated March 15, 1977 and the names appearing as Serial Nos. 26 to 80 belonged to those including the writ petitioners who although came to be successful in the selection of 1976 but could not be included on the ground that there were no vacancies. 26 to 80 belonged to those including the writ petitioners who although came to be successful in the selection of 1976 but could not be included on the ground that there were no vacancies. The enlarged panel of 1977 published on August 12, 1985 establishes the fact that their seniority position of the applicants' appearing in the panel remains undisturbed. 28. The learned Counsel for the applicants made a grievance that the applicants were not made parties in the first and the second application for contempt. It was contended on behalf of the applicants is that the Memorandum dated October 8, 1985 and Annexure 'A' thereto would show the position of the first twenty-one candidates in the original panel as mentioned in the Circular dated March 15, 1977 remained same but the candidates against serial Nos. 22 to 25 of the original 1977 panel were deleted. At this stage, Mr. Gupta claimed that the grievance of the writ petitioners as raised in the second application for contempt that the said Memorandum dated October 8, 1985 did not have the effect of re-arranging the panel in terms of the order passed by the learned Judge on July 16, 1984 is without any foundation. 29. The applicants, according to Mr. Gupta, came to know from the office of the Railway Administration that the second application for contempt would come up for orders dated December 20, 1985. Accordingly, the learned Advocate were engaged by the applicants to appear on December 20, 1985 before the Appeal Court. On December 20, 1985 when the matter was called on, the learned Advocates on behalf of the applicants submitted that in view of the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge and the Appeal Court the seniority of the applicants should not be disturbed and the Appeal Court observed that the position of the applicants would not be affected. 30. It further appears that the applicants bad knowledge of the second application for contempt and also knowledge of the first application for contempt. The applicants, according to Mr. Gupta, have serious apprehension that the Railway Administration will proceed on the basis of the rules and procedures as laid down in D. O. dated December 8, 1978. 31. 30. It further appears that the applicants bad knowledge of the second application for contempt and also knowledge of the first application for contempt. The applicants, according to Mr. Gupta, have serious apprehension that the Railway Administration will proceed on the basis of the rules and procedures as laid down in D. O. dated December 8, 1978. 31. Further contention of the applicants that the writ petitioners did not obtain marks above 70% in the examination held in 1977, nor in the very good category but obtained marks between 60% and 69% and were, therefore, in the good category. They would have undue advantage getting into very good category. The order dated January 27, 1986 created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the applicants that Railway Administration would give such interpretation to the said order that the seniority of the applicants in substantive capacity as Assistant Engineer would be totally upset and would cause irreparable prejudice to the applicants. Moreover, four of the applicants would face reversion from the post of officiating District Engineer and six of the applicants who are officiating as District Engineer and have been given Class-I nomination with prospect of serious jeopordy. It was further urged that the existing rules cannot be interpreted in such manner as to mean that D. O. No E(GP)78/2/107 dated December 8, 1978 would be applicable in case of enlarged panel. 32. Reference to and reliance on certain basic documents was made. The office order of the Railway Administration dated February 19, 1976 indicates that there should be a formation of panel for Class-II for the post of Assistant Engineer and for that purpose the provisional panel of the Assistant Engineer for promotional post of which four posts are reserved for S. C. and two post for S. T. remaining 19 posts are reserved was preferred. The office order of Railway Administration dated December 3, 1976 also refers to selection for formation of panel as Assistant Engineer. The office order dated March 15, 1977 shows the panel of the staff approved by the General Manager on March 11, 1977 for promotion to the cost of AEN(C II). The said selection was made on the basis of the Railway Board letter being No. E(GP)/2/504 dated December 20, 1966 providing for three categories (1) those getting 80% and above outstanding. The said selection was made on the basis of the Railway Board letter being No. E(GP)/2/504 dated December 20, 1966 providing for three categories (1) those getting 80% and above outstanding. (2) those getting between 70% to 79% good and (3) those getting between 60% and 69% good. 33. Mr. Gupta claimed and contended further that the revised procedure in terms of D. O. No. E(GP)78/2/107 dated December 8, 1978 will not be effective in the case of selection which have already been finalised and approved by the authority before December 8, 1978. 1977 panel was not set aside by this Court and in those circumstances, the revised procedure would not he applicable in the facts of this case. Construction of 1966 Circular and 1978 Circular was sought to be made. 1966 Circular since modified, according to Mr. Gupta, has and had the fullest no manner of application in case of the applicants whose selection being finalised and approved could not be adversely affected by the 1978 Circular modifying the eligible criteria. The said 1978 Circular if not applicable retrospectively. 34. Further claim of the applicants is that the Railway Administration duly implemented the order passed by this Court by Memo dated August 12, 1985 followed by subsequent Memo dated October 8, 1985. The order dated February 21, 1986 has and had the effect of altering the seniority position of the applicants and which is not direct and definite consequence of the judgment of the learned trial Judge duly affirmed by the Appeal Court and dismissed or SLP by the Supreme Court. 35. Mr. Gupta pin-pointed that Memo dated August 12, 1985 and October 8, 1986 did maintain inter-se seniority. The special stress was laid upon panel dated October 8, 1985. The panel dated October 8, 1985 was duly prepared in accordance with the judgment of the learned trial Judge as also the Division Bench. The existing Rule prevalent on March 15, 1977 governs the instant case. The order passed by the Court on January 27, 1986 adversely affected the applicants. 36. The Railway Administration filed affidavit-in-opposition and also filed an application for vacating interim order affirmed on July 4, 1989. The existing Rule prevalent on March 15, 1977 governs the instant case. The order passed by the Court on January 27, 1986 adversely affected the applicants. 36. The Railway Administration filed affidavit-in-opposition and also filed an application for vacating interim order affirmed on July 4, 1989. The stand of the South Eastern Railway in its barest outline is presented hereunder:- The Railway Administration in pursuance of the order passed by the Appeal Court on January 27, 1986 took steps to confer the benefits upon the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 17 and the office orders were accordingly issued by the Railway Administration on February 21, 1986. 37. In view of the order passed by this Court on February 25, 1986 directing the Railway Administration not to take any further steps in the matter till disposal of the application, the Railway Administration is no, in a position to make any appointment of senior scale grade-A since November 13, 1985. A large number of senior scale of post are available for meeting the requirement of day to day work connected with the function of the Railway as also to cope with the development activities and the increased work. The appointment of some grade-B officers to senior officer have been made on account of non-availability of eligible group-A officer. A number of temporary work-charged senior scale post was specifically created for catering to the requirement of the increased development working. 38. Accordingly, the Railway Administration prayed for filling up 21 additional posts of senior scale Engineers by promotion or balance number of B group officers on the panel 1977 and 1979, who fulfilled the requirement according to the Dorms prescribed by the Ministry of Railway without determining inter-se seniority in any way and subject to further orders of this Court. 39. The affidavit-in reply was affirmed by Railway Administration on February 19, 1990. In the said affidavit, it is, inter alia, claimed and asserted that the Railway Administration in obedience to the orders of this Court took steps to confer the seniority and the benefits to the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 17. The necessary orders, in this regard, were issued on February 21, 1986. 40. The applicants challenged the revised seniority list. 1, 3 and 17. The necessary orders, in this regard, were issued on February 21, 1986. 40. The applicants challenged the revised seniority list. While referring to the challenge of the applicants against the revised seniority list on the basis of office order dated February 21, 1986, the Railway Administration claimed that it wanted to implement the orders of this Court and took the necessary steps, but the revised seniority list could not be implemented due to grant of interim order passed on February 25, 1986. 41. The main thrust of the writ petitioners is that the applicants who are some of the respondents in the writ applications did not represent the case at any stage of the proceedings either before the learned trial Judge or before the Appeal Court as also before the Supreme Court and they preferred not to contest the matter although-out. It is pin-pointed by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that bona fide view of the applicants that the Railway Authorities would successfully sustain their action and as such, having regard to the financial resources of those applicants it was considered that the separate representation could be avoided would demonstrate their silence. After placing reliance on the said plea as would appear from paragraph 4(a) of the affidavit-in-reply of the applicants affirmed on May 20, 1986, it is seriously commented on ominous silence and unexplained in action during the period between 1978 and February 19, 1986. In extension of the aforesaid objection, Mr. Mukherjee seriously assailed that the conduct of the applicants would not disentitle them to claim for such relief as prayed for in the said application for the reasons detailed hereunder:- There are three stages of the proceedings prior to the first and the second application for contempt by the writ petitioners (1) the writ proceeding before the learned trial Judge (ii) the two appeals arising out of the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge passed on July 16, 1984 before the Appeal Court and the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The applicants never represented their cases before, (i) the learned trial Judge, (ii) the Appeal Court presided over by Murari Mohan Dutt, J. and Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. and before the Supreme Court. The applicants never represented their cases before, (i) the learned trial Judge, (ii) the Appeal Court presided over by Murari Mohan Dutt, J. and Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. and before the Supreme Court. On the ground that the applicants were bona fide of the view that the Railway Authorities would successfully sustain their action and as such, hailing regard to the financial reasons the separate representation could be avoided. 42. The stand of the applicants as would appear in paragraph 4(a) according to Mr. Mukherjee constitutes sufficient reasons to believe that those private respondents not found the Railway Administration are fighting out for them and separate representation could be avoided. The prayer for intervention is seriously opposed by the writ petitioners on the ground that the applicants have and had the fullest knowledge of the proceedings and also the Memos dated August 12 1985, October 8, 1985 and they have the knowledge that they were not made parties in the first application for contempt even it is claimed that they appeared before the Court on or before December 20, 1985, but the names of the learned Counsel for the applicants did not appear in the order-sheet, nor any application regarding then apprehension was presented before the Appeal Court on December 20, 1985 and also they have and had the knowledge of the order passed by the Court on January 27, 1986. Paragraphs 1 to 50 of the said application are affirmed true to knowledge of the deponent Chittilia Chitti Kameswara Rao one of the applicants. 43. After pressing reliance on the said application in 8n elaborate manner, Mr. Mukherjee advanced his submission on the maintainability of the said application in the manner following:- Impleading of the applicants in the second application for contempt is not necessary. Implementation of the judgment has to be effected by the Railway Administration. The applicants being the private respondents in the writ application are not the necessary parties for giving effect to the orders passed by this Court on July 16, 1984 duly affirmed by the Appeal Court on February 25, 1985. The applicants not being necessary and proper parties, their presence is not required in the second application for contempt. The applicants being the private respondents in the writ application have no right of intervention in the second application for contempt, nor they are entitled to be impleaded as necessary parties. The applicants not being necessary and proper parties, their presence is not required in the second application for contempt. The applicants being the private respondents in the writ application have no right of intervention in the second application for contempt, nor they are entitled to be impleaded as necessary parties. The contempt proceedings stand on footing on its own and cannot be equated with the other proceedings since the Court is not deciding the case between the two parties. The Court is required to find out and decide whether the majesty of law and dignity of the Court is effected by reason of obstruction to and/or wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Court. The applicants seeking to intervene in the matter could have challenged the order dated February 21, 1986 by initiating appropriate proceeding inasmuch as the Railway Administration by passing the order dated February 21, 1986 sought to give effect to the order passed by the Court on January 27, 1986. The applicants have no locus staid to intervene in the application of contempt nor any right to challenge the order dated February 21, 1986 by such recourse as is manifest in the facts of the case on hand. The order dated February 21, 1986 is nor open for challenge in the contempt proceedings. Ii is, therefore, fit and proper to examine the fundamental objection of the writ petitioners to the maintainability of the said application on the ground as to whether the applicants could be allowed to intervene in the contempt proceedings. In the event the applicants are allowed by this Court to intervene in the contempt proceedings, the basic challenge of the applicants would be decided on merits. 44. The focal point, therefore, falls for determination by this Court is whether the said application for intervention is maintainable. If the determination on this fundamental and foundational aspect goes in favour of the applicants, it will be necessary for us to examine the merits of this challenge. 45. Since both the parties addressed the Court at the lenght on the merits of the case. The rival contentions of the parties revolve round the central point of the debate as to what is meant by the expression "existing rules". The learned trial Judge held that the panel is not properly prepared on the ground that there was no correct assessment of vacancies. The rival contentions of the parties revolve round the central point of the debate as to what is meant by the expression "existing rules". The learned trial Judge held that the panel is not properly prepared on the ground that there was no correct assessment of vacancies. There was no compliance of the Circular of the Railway Board in the matter of selection of S. C. and S. T. candidates which resulted in working out a great injustice. The Appeal Court also duly affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the interesting aspect of the matter is whether the revised procedure will be effective in terms of D. O. dated December 8, 1978. The judgment of the learned trial Judge was affirmed by the Appeal Court. The dismissal of S. L. P. by the Supreme Court constitutes finality. The judgment of the learned trial Judge is not now open for any further debate before this Court, nor does this Court can question nor review the decision of the learned trial Judge as also the judgment of the Appeal Court by reason of the dismissal of S. L. P. 46. Mr. Dipankar Gupta cited the decision in the case of (1) P. Mahendra and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 405 . The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in P. Mahendra v. State of Karnataka (Supra), held that it is well-settled construction that every statute or statutory implication made to have prospective effect. The amending Rule cannot affect or invalidate the selection already made. The amending Rule of 1987 as found by the Supreme Court does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect, nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held that the selection process is to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at its commencement, but each case is to be decided on its own merits. In the instant case, the panel was found not properly prepared and the Court held that it worked out injustice. The expression "finalised" and "approved" is to be construed in the light of the finding reached by the learned trial Judge or the Appeal Court. 47. The focal point for determination is whether the said application praying for intervention in contempt proceedings is maintainable or not? The expression "finalised" and "approved" is to be construed in the light of the finding reached by the learned trial Judge or the Appeal Court. 47. The focal point for determination is whether the said application praying for intervention in contempt proceedings is maintainable or not? We have discussed in details the conduct of the applicants during all the years between 1978 and February 19, 1986. The applicants never throught it fit and proper to contest the challenge of the writ petitioners at any stage of the proceedings on the ground as would appear from paragraph 4(a) of the Affidavit-in-Reply as set out in extenso hereinbefore. This Court cannot but deprecate ominous silence and unexplained delay on the part of the applicants during all these years. The applicants did contest the matter on the ground as would appear from the aforesaid paragraph 4(a). The applicants never disclosed as to how, when and for whom they acquired the knowledge of the orders passed by this Court after February 25, 1985. Source of their knowledge remains held back. The applicants with the fullest knowledge of the contempt proceedings initiated by the writ petitioners never cared to vindicate their grievances. Even from the said application, it appears that the applicants on apprehension engaged the learned Counsel to oppose any order which might be passed against them by the Appeal Court on December 20, 1985. Unfortunately, there is no materials on records to show that the learned Counsel for the applicant, did appear on December 20, 1986, nor did they file any application before this Court on or before December 20, 1986. The Appeal Court passed an order on January 27, 1986. The applicants sat tight over the matter and waited till February 19, 1986 just on the eve of the passing of the order dated February 21, 1986 by the Railway Administration. All the facts constitute a sharp pointer to the conduct of the applicants which, in our view, is fully reprehensible. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the Rule, framed by this Court do not provide for intervention by the third parties. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as to addition of parties do not arise in the contempt matter which is entirely between the Court and the Contemner. If the applicants are allowed to intervene in the proceedings, then it will seriously affect the contempt proceedings. 48. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as to addition of parties do not arise in the contempt matter which is entirely between the Court and the Contemner. If the applicants are allowed to intervene in the proceedings, then it will seriously affect the contempt proceedings. 48. On the question of the third party intervention we are of the view that under the Contempt of Court Act as also Rules framed thereunder the applicants cannot be permitted to join as Interveners in the in the Contempt proceedings. The presence of the interveners in a given situation may lead to the generation of beat as well as arming for and against the contemners with lethal weapons which in our opinion, would make the Court involved more than what is necessary in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Court Act. We are, therefore, of view that the applicants have no right of participation inasmuch as the right of participation is not given under the Act to third parties including those who act as an informer. 49. The applicants only acted as the fancesitters during all these years and never cared to contest the matter. Just on the eve of the issue of the order dated February 21, 1986 the applicants woke up from slumber and sought to assail the action of the Railway Administration in revising the seniority list as aforesaid. The order dated February 21, 1986 is not open for challenge by the applicants in contempt proceedings. The applicants instead of initiating proper and appropriate proceedings have come up with the said application. We are unable to decide the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated February 21, 1986 in the contempt proceedings. We do not also express any opinion on the challenge of the applicants. They are left open for the reasons indicated above. 50. Mr. Bankim Dutta, the Senior Advocate duly assisted by Bhabani Sunder Bagchi, the learned Advocate submitted that the Railway Administration took steps for implementation of the order of the Court by revising the seniority list of the promotee engineers from their non-gazetted status. Reference was made to paragraph 17 of the Affidavit-in-Reply affirmed on February 19, 1990. The said paragraph, inter alia, states that the order dated February 21, 1986 has been kept pending because of the interim order passed on February 25, 1986. Mr. Reference was made to paragraph 17 of the Affidavit-in-Reply affirmed on February 19, 1990. The said paragraph, inter alia, states that the order dated February 21, 1986 has been kept pending because of the interim order passed on February 25, 1986. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the order dated February 21, 1986 shell be implemented as soon as the order of injunction granted by the Court on February 25, 1986 stands vated. In support of such submission, Mr. Dutt further placed the application for vacation or variation of the interim order passed on February 25, 1986 and submitted the steps which were taken by the Railway Administration for conferring benefit upon the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 17 could not be given effect to because of the interim order passed by this Court on February 25, 1985. 51. The Railway Administration in the application for vacating interim order has given the data as regards the vacancies of the officers and also expressed its serious concern about the difficulties in the matter of coping with day to day administration and the development activities of the Railway. We are of the view that the application for vacating interim order was rightly made by the Railway Administration. Most of the writ petitioners excepting 1, 3 and 17 either retired or died. The writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 17 have sustained the agony during all these years. The Railway Administration in clear terms submitted that the benefits arising out of the order dated February 21, 1986 would be conferred upon the writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 17. 52. In view of the order passed by the Railway Administration on February 21, 1986, we do not think it fit and proper to make any order excepting the application for contempt by reason of the decision as contained in order dated February 21, 1986 taken by the Railway Administration for conferment of the consequential and attendant benefits upon the writ Petitioner Nos 1, 3 and 17 is merited to be disposed of and accordingly, the application for contempt is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid findings, the said application stands dismissed so the application for vacating interim order passed by the Railway Administration is disposed of. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. Prayer for stay of operation of the judgment made by Mr. In view of the aforesaid findings, the said application stands dismissed so the application for vacating interim order passed by the Railway Administration is disposed of. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. Prayer for stay of operation of the judgment made by Mr. S. Pal is considered and refused. Mukherjee, J.: I agree.