ORDER 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of the respondent is in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan { (1986) 2 SCC 679 at 705-06}. The relevant portion of the judgment reads: (SCC pp. 705-06, para 40) "For Part II examination of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination (Ordinary) and all subsequent Part II examinations of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination (Ordinary) held hereafter until today there will be a relaxation of 25 marks in all for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, that is, this relaxation will cover not only the pass marks to be given in the aggregate but will be inclusive of the pass marks to be given in each individual paper so that the total number of marks covered by such relaxation will not exceed 25. The respondents and all other candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who will pass the said examinations as a result of the above relaxation are declared to have passed such examinations and to have been promoted to the Subordinate Accounts Service in the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes with effect from the date when the final declaration of the results of each such examination was made and will be paid such salary and shall be entitled to all other benefits on the basis of such promotion with effect from the said date. So far as seniority is concerned, however, they will not rank above those who have already passed and have been promoted but will be placed in the seniority list after all those who have passed in Part II of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination (Ordinary) held so far, ranking inter se according to the rules relating to seniority set out in paragraph 184 of volume I of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals Manual of Standing Orders (Administrative)." 2. The facts leading to the above case are these. In December 1980, the respondent appeared for Part II examination of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination which is a prescribed departmental examination for promotion. He was not declared successful. He claimed relaxation in awarding certain marks. That claim was not acceded to. The facts leading to the above case are these. In December 1980, the respondent appeared for Part II examination of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination which is a prescribed departmental examination for promotion. He was not declared successful. He claimed relaxation in awarding certain marks. That claim was not acceded to. Finally, he approached this Court in C.A. No. 2952 of 1984 in which he was given the relief as stated above. He was declared to have passed the Part II examination of the SAS examination, but a specific direction was issued that he should be ranked below all those who have already passed such examination and since been promoted. To be more specific, it was directed that he should be placed in the seniority list after all those who have passed Part n of the SAS examination held so far ranking inter se according to the rules relating to seniority set out in para 184 of volume I of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals Manual of Standing Orders (Administrative). 3. In obedience to the direction of this Court an order dated June 12, 1986 was made giving deemed promotion to the respondent as Section Officer w.e.f. June 12,1981 and he was ranked below all the persons who have passed the SAS examination earlier. Consequently, he was also given further promotion. The respondent was not satisfied with the benefits given to him. He approached this Court seeking clarification of the direction issued in his earlier case. He filed CMP No. 29943 of 1986 which was disposed of in the following terms: "In view of the said direction, C and AG of India has rightly placed the respondents below to all those who had passed the examination held from 1980 onwards in the seniority list. The contention that this would violate the rule of seniority as embodied in para 184 of the Standing Orders cannot prevail. The rule as to inter se seniority set out in para 184 stands modified accordingly." 4. It will be seen from the above clarification that the seniority fixed and the promotion given to the respondent was upheld. Nonetheless, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Application No. 489 of 1987. The rule as to inter se seniority set out in para 184 stands modified accordingly." 4. It will be seen from the above clarification that the seniority fixed and the promotion given to the respondent was upheld. Nonetheless, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Application No. 489 of 1987. Therein he sought a direction to the Comptroller and Auditor General to promote him from the post of Section Officer to that of Assistant Audit Officer w.e.f. 1984 and also to promote him as Audit Officer w. e. f. 1986 against the reserved vacancy. 5. The Tribunal has allowed that claim with the following directions: "To prepare for the year 1984 and thereafter for each recruitment year select list for the posts of Assistant Audit Officer with reference to rule of reservation based on the 40 point poster. For the recruitment year 1986 against the carry forward vacancies of 1985 if the applicant fulfils the conditions laid down in the rules then in force, he should be promoted with all consequential monetary benefits. Similarly, for the post of Audit Officer if he fulfils the conditions, the applicant may be considered against the reserve vacancies for the subsequent recruitment years with all consequential monetary benefits." 6. The Tribunal seems to have proceeded on the ground that the respondent is entitled to carry forward vacancies from the year 1984 and he is entitled to be promoted against the carry forward vacancy from the recruitment year 1986 as Assistant Audit Officer and again thereafter for the post of Audit Officer following the same principle. The Tribunal has also observed that the judgment of this Court cannot deny him these promotional benefits from 1981. But the result of this reasoning is incompatible with the decision of this Court. But it is important to point out that relief could not have been allowed by the Tribunal since it was specifically directed by this Court that he should be ranked below all those persons who had passed till then the SAS examination and promoted. The Tribunal also ought to have known that the relief which the respondent sought before the Tribunal was denied to him by this Court in the clarification order made in CMP No. 29943 of 1986. The Tribunal also ought to have known that the relief which the respondent sought before the Tribunal was denied to him by this Court in the clarification order made in CMP No. 29943 of 1986. It is unfortunate that in spite of the clear direction of this Court and the clarification subsequently made denying that relief, the Tribunal thought fit to grant the same to the respondent. To say the least, the Tribunal has behaved very badly. 7. In the result we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. For Citation : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 130. Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.