ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The order dated 10-10-1991 in OA No. 220 of 1988 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant claimed promotion in the ?rds quota for the post of Superintendent and it is an admitted position that he was eligible to be considered for such promotion provided he was a permanent employee in the National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagarh, a unit of ICAR and not a deputationist. The Tribunal did not consider his case because the question of his repatriation to the parent department was not then finally decided. In para 13 of the impugned order, the Tribunal observed to the following effect: "We, however, make it clear that the applicant shall be entitled to all available remedies under the law at the appropriate stage, when the question of his repatriation is finally settled. The decision in this application will not affect his right to such legal remedies." 4. However, it appears that the question of repatriation of the appellant has been finally decided and the special leave petition (CC No. 5238 of 1995) moved before this Court against the decision in OA No. 466 of 1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal has also been dismissed by this Court on 2-1-1996. The status of the appellant as a permanent employee of the National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagarh has now been determined in his favour. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent along with other eligible candidates, if any, in that category. It may be stated here that since the status of the appellant was not finally determined, he was not considered and the post was filled up by candidates eligible in the limited quota of ?rd by holding the departmental examination. Such appointment was, however, made subject to the result in the said pending OA No. 220 of 1988 which appears from the observation in the impugned judgment. In the aforesaid facts, the respondent is directed to consider the case of promotion of the appellant to the post of Superintendent in the ?rds quota to which he was and is entitled, after considering the cases of other eligible candidates, if there are such candidates in the category to which the appellant belongs. In the aforesaid facts, the respondent is directed to consider the case of promotion of the appellant to the post of Superintendent in the ?rds quota to which he was and is entitled, after considering the cases of other eligible candidates, if there are such candidates in the category to which the appellant belongs. If on such consideration the appellant is found suitable to get promotion, he should be given notional promotion from the date on which the other candidate was promoted in ?rd quota and the appellant should also be given seniority over such candidate. Such direction will be fair and just because consideration of the case of the appellant was not made only on the score of non-determination of the status of the appellant in the National Research Centre of Groundnut and consequential filling up of the post from candidates eligible in ?rd quota was made. 5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.