JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Union of India has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 28.5.19899 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby (the petitioner-Union of India has been directed to issue necessary orders for change of cadre of the respondent No.1 Smt. Nina Singh from the joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura to the State of Rajasthan or in the alternative to any other State for which the applicant has exercised her option as envisaged under Rule 5(2) of the I.P.S. Cadre Rules, 1954. This direction was issued by the Tribunal allowing the application of respondent No. 1 - Smt. Nina Singh after the impugned orders dated 25.10.1994 and 11.8.1995 rejecting the representation of respondent No.1 and repatriating her to the parent cadre of Manipur and Tripura cadre from the State of Rajasthan, was quashed and set aside. 2. The Facts and circumstances, in so far as it is relevant for deciding the controversy involved herein, are that the respondent No. Smt. Nina Singh and respondent No.2 Shri Rohit Kumar Singh were selected in the Indian Civil Services Examination in the year 1988, after which respondent No.1 Smt. Nina Singh was allotted I.P.S. Cadre of Manipur and Tripura and respondent No.2 was allotted IAS Cadre also at Manipur and Tripura. Thus both of them were allotted the joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura. It appears that in the year 1988, the law and order situation in north- east States of India and also in Jammu and Kashmir were seriously disturbed as a result of which one lady I.P.C. Officer also was killed by an extremist. The Government of India, therefore, reviewed the policy of allocating cadre to women officers of All India Service in north-east and for this purpose a meeting was held by the Civil Service Board on 24th September, 1990 wherein it was decided that the women officers other than those who hailed from the same State and who expressed their willingness, shall not he allocated those cadres for the next three years, which was to commence from the year 1990 and this was to follow till the year 1992. As regards change of cadre for women officers already allotted to the above cadres i.e. pre-1990 batches, the suggestions made by the Civil Service Board was to be examined separately. As regards change of cadre for women officers already allotted to the above cadres i.e. pre-1990 batches, the suggestions made by the Civil Service Board was to be examined separately. A decision was thereafter taken on 25th March, 1991 by the PMO that change of cadre be allowed to single women and all those married women Officers who are married to Officers' of All India Services, be allowed deputation. The Central Government consequently communicated this decision to the Government of Manipur by the letter dated 25.3.1991 stating that the Government of India has decided not to allocate any cadre of north-cast to women probationers of All India Services for a period of 3 years from the 1990 batch and while single women were perniitted to permanently change their cadre, married women were to be sent on short-term deputation to any other State Except their Home State. 3. In pursuance of this decision, the respondent No.2- Smt. Nina Singh opted for a short-term deputation to the State of Rajasthan which was allowed and hence she joined the State of Rajasthan cadre on 9th of June, 1992. She, thereafter also submitted a representation for permanent change of cadre and for retaining her in Rajasthan and the Government of Rajasthan also recommended in her favour. Subsequently, she learnt that another lady IAS-Officer Smt. Vandana Kumari Jaina who was selected in the 1979 batch and was allotted cadre of Manipur- Tripura to the State of Orissa on the ground that her husband belonged to Indian Audit and Account Service, which is a Central Service of the Government of India, whereas respondent No.1 Smt. Nina Singh was granted only a short-term deputation to Rajasthan. She, therefore, Iiled a representation before the Government of India for permanent change of cadre and for retaining her in Rajasthan. The representation of respondent No.1 Smt. Nina Singh did not meet with any response which prompted her to take recourse to the legal remedy and she, therefore, filed an application bearing O.A. No. 360/93 before the CAT at Jaipur. The respondent No. 1 therein sought to challenge the discrimination between married and unmarried lady officers and further challenged the unjust and unreasonable classification between lady I.P.C. Officers married to All India Service Officers and lady All India Service Officers married to Central Service Officers as being invalid and arbitrary. The respondent No. 1 therein sought to challenge the discrimination between married and unmarried lady officers and further challenged the unjust and unreasonable classification between lady I.P.C. Officers married to All India Service Officers and lady All India Service Officers married to Central Service Officers as being invalid and arbitrary. She also questioned the policy as per which option to change the case was being confined to women officers from 1990 batch onwards only. She had prayed therein that the decision of the Government of India contained in Communication dated 22.7.1991 was void and she further sought permission to allow her to exercise her option for change of cadre from the joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura to any other cadre. Finally she had prayed that the option exercised by her for short-term deputation to Rajasthan be converted into permanent change of cadre. 4. The Tribunal alter hearing the counsel for the parties categorically recorded a finding that the Government of India has subjected the parties to unjust discrimination and hence it directed by its order dated 6.5.1994 to allow the applicant to exercise her option for permanent change of cadre from joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura. Such an option was to he exercised within a period of four months and it was directed that the same be entertained and a decision thereof be taken as per rules. Since the representation of the respondent No.1- Smt. Nina Singh was still pending in this regard, the petitioner-Union of India was directed to consider the same in the light of the observations made in its judgment and order. 5. The representation of the respondent No. 1 however, was still not considered by the petitioner-Government of India as she neither received any response rejecting her representation nor any order was granted in her favour for change of cadre. She, therefore, filed a petition for contempt before the Tribunal for non-implementation of its decision, wherein a reply was filed by the petitioner-Government of India that her representation had since been rejected as inter-cadre transfer was not permissible. It further communicated to the CAT that the Government of India rejected the representation of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Nina Singh mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is married to an officer belonging to All India Service. It further communicated to the CAT that the Government of India rejected the representation of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Nina Singh mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is married to an officer belonging to All India Service. Unfortunately for the contesting respondent No.], the contempt petition was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the Government of India had literaly complied with the directions of Ilse 'tribunal by considering her representation. The petitioner thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court but she could not make out a case before the Supreme Court that any case for contempt was made out before the Tribunal as a result of which the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 10.5.1995. The petitioner-Government of India, therefore, issued an order on 11.8.1995 repatriating the respondent No.1 to her parent cadre of Manipur and Tripura. 6. Since the respondents case before the Tribunal had not resulted in a categorical judgment and order to the effect that the action of the petitioner-Govern ment of India was discriminatory in nature and the Government of India had merely been directed to consider her representation, the respondent No. 1 was advised that she was entitled to pile a fresh petition before the CAT as the CAT had not passed a conclusive judgment either in her favour or against her on merit. It was advised to her that mere direction by the Tribunal to the Government of India to consider her representation could not have been treated as a final and conclusive judgment on the controversy involved therein as she had sought the relief from the Tribunal as to why her prayer should not be e.ranled in the wake of the discriminatory treatment meted out to her whereas Smt. Vandana Jaina was permitted the change, for the only difference between her case and the case of Smt. Jaina was that Suit. Jaina was married to an officer of Central Services whereas she was married to an officer belonging to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service. 7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the application of respondent No. 1 Smt. Nina Singh holding therein that the Tribunal had already held in her favour to the eltect that Snit. Jaina was married to an officer of Central Services whereas she was married to an officer belonging to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service. 7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the application of respondent No. 1 Smt. Nina Singh holding therein that the Tribunal had already held in her favour to the eltect that Snit. Vandana Kumari Jaina and the respondent- Smt. Nina Singh belong to the same class and same cadre of Manipur and Tripura being member of the All India Services and while exercising option for permanent change of Cadre was permitted to Sint. Jaina, the respondent No. 1 Smt. Singh was allowed only a short-term deputation which resulted into an unreasonable classification to women officers who belonged to All India Service and those whose husband belonged to other categories of the Civil Services. The learned Members of the Tribunal have held that denial of opportunity to exercise option for permanent change of cadre to the respondent- Smt. Nina Singh, who was the only married I.P.S. officer (till then in the entire north-east States) was held to be unjust and unreasonable. The learned Members of the Tribunal further held that the petitioner-Government of India having not preferred any appeal against these Iindings recorded by the "Tribunal on the earlier occasion in O.A. No. 360/1993. these findings had become final after which it did not lie in the mouth of any of the officers of the Government of India to challenge the findings to the effect that "unreasonable classification to women officers whose husband belong to other categories of the Central Services stand on different footing". The learned Members held that they are thus estopped by their own conduct to urge thereafter that the rules provide otherwise and that the policy of the inter-cadre transfers envisages such transfers only when two All India Service Officers belonging to two different cadres marry and that the case of Snit. Nina Singh is not covered by it. The learned Members held that they are thus estopped by their own conduct to urge thereafter that the rules provide otherwise and that the policy of the inter-cadre transfers envisages such transfers only when two All India Service Officers belonging to two different cadres marry and that the case of Snit. Nina Singh is not covered by it. The learned Members of the Tribunal were also of the view that once a finding recorded by the Tribunal was not challenged by the Government of India before any forum it had becomes final and her representation had to be considered in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and it was further essential for the Central Government to abide by it and issue necessary directions in favour of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Nina Singh In the opinion of the learned members of the Tribunal, the petitioner-Union of India, therefore, could not take the plea that in the operative portion of the order, there was only a direction to decide and consider the representation made by the applicant as the respondents were to decide not only the representation of the applicant but were also under a duty to abide by the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the earlier judgment and order disposed of on 6.5.1994. The petitioner- Government of India as a necessary corollary was only to give her option for change of cadre from the joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura to the State of Rajasthan or other States indicated by the respondent No.2 and the respondents should have taken a decision in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954, which was not done by them. In view of these findings the application of the applicant- respondent No.I Sint. Nina Singh was allowed and it has been directed to the petitioner-Union of India to issue necessary orders about the change of cadre of the respondent No. 1 from the joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura to the State of Rajasthan or in the alternative to the States for which the applicant had exercised her option. 8. Nina Singh was allowed and it has been directed to the petitioner-Union of India to issue necessary orders about the change of cadre of the respondent No. 1 from the joint cadre of Manipur and Tripura to the State of Rajasthan or in the alternative to the States for which the applicant had exercised her option. 8. Challenging the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contesting respondent No.1 Smt. Singh has not been subjected to any discrimination as she was sent to the State of Rajasthan on deputation and no illegality can be alleged while repatriating her to her parent cadre of Manipur and Tripura as the same was done in pursuance of the decision of the Central Selection Board which had decided not to allocated any cadre to women officers of All India Service to north- eastern States for a period of 5 years only which commenced from 1990 batch. Smt. Singh had been sent on deputation for this period only and hence she could not he permitted to pennanently change her cadre; consequently there is nothing wrong in the order repatriating her to her parent cadre of Manipur "Tripura. It was also submitted by him that Smt. Singh had lost upto the Supreme Court when her Special Leave Petition was dismissed and no case for contempt could be made out against the petitioner-Union of India for initiating a contempt proceeding against them. The Tribunal, therefore, should not have entertained her application for the second time for change of her cadre as the same was legally barred. Besides these two points, no other point was raised before us by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the materials on record, we do not find any substance in either of these submissions. Besides these two points, no other point was raised before us by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the materials on record, we do not find any substance in either of these submissions. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner is conveniently missing that on the first occasion when the respondent-Nina Singh had filed the application alleging discrimination, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner-Union of India to consider her representation in the light of the discussions and observations made in the order dated 6.5.1994 and it was categorically held therein that denial of opportunity to exercise option for permanent change of cadre to the applicant (Nina Singh), who was then the only married I.P.S. Officer in the entire north- eastern States was unjust and unreasonable. This was all the more, so since another officer being the member of All India Service Sint. Vandana Kumari Jaina was allowed to exercise option for permanent change of cadre as her husband belonged to Indian Audit & Accounts Service (a Central Service) whereas the said concession was not made in favour of respondent No. 1. The Tribunal, therefore, had allowed her application and permitted her to exercise option for the permanent change of cadre from the joint cadre of Manipur_ Tripura to any other cadre except north-east States and Jammu & Kashmir. The Tribunal had further held that if such an option is exercised within a period of 4 weeks from the date of that order, a decision therein was ordered to be taken by the Union of India keeping in view the observations of the Tribunal recorded in its order. The Tribunal, however, inspite of these observations, had refrained from issuing a mandatory direction to the petitioner-Union of India to comply with the order and rightly so as the Tribunal could not have decided which cadre was to be allotted to the respondent No.]. It is obvious that the contempt petition could not have been entertained by the Supreme Court since there was no categorical direction in her favour by the Tribunal to that effect which led to dismissal of the contempt petition moved by the respondent No.1 before the Supreme Court. It is obvious that the contempt petition could not have been entertained by the Supreme Court since there was no categorical direction in her favour by the Tribunal to that effect which led to dismissal of the contempt petition moved by the respondent No.1 before the Supreme Court. But this cannot be construed so as to infer that the Supreme Court had over-turned or set aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 6.5.1994 in absence of any appeal as we have noticed that the petitioner-Union of India had not preferred any appeal against the findings recorded by the Tribunal before the Supreme Court and even if the policy decision in regard to cadre allocation was not set aside by the Tribunal, it had categorically recorded that two criteria could not have been laid down while permitting change of cadre in regard to two women officers of Manipur- Tribunal. If the petitioner-Union of India felt aggrieved with this finding of the Tribunal on the question of discrimination that it was unjust or illegal, the petitioner-Union of India should have challenged it at the appropriate time which they failed to do and hence the learned Members of the Tribunal are justified in holding that they cannot be permitted to challenge the same on the subsequent occasion merely because a categorical direction had not been issued. 10. On the question of discrimination, we have further noticed that Smt. Vandana Kumari Jaina an I.A.S. Officer was permitted to change her cadre from Manipur Tripura to Orissa tier security reason although her husband could not have been permanently posted in Orissa as he is a member of Central Service being in the Indian Audit & Accounts Service, which was transferable, yet this concession was made in her savour to the exclusion of another officer of the I.P.S. cadre when it was more dangerous to serve as an I.P.C. Officer n that State at the relevant time due to which the policy decision was taken by the Central Services Board itself not to allocated the cadre of Manipur and Tripura to women IPS Officers. In fact the Central Service Board itself had not discriminated between married and unmarried women officers while policy decision was taken and it was only later while implementing that policy, this discrimination emerged for which we find no reasonable justification. In fact the Central Service Board itself had not discriminated between married and unmarried women officers while policy decision was taken and it was only later while implementing that policy, this discrimination emerged for which we find no reasonable justification. We have also further noticed that the application of the respondent No. 1 on the earlier occasion was not allowed to the extent of setting aside the order of her repatriation and the petitioner-Union of India had merely been directed to consider her representation in the light of the observation made therein. It is obvious that it was for this very reason that the contempt petition also stood dismissed before the Supreme Court. But we all are well aware that the courts of competent jurisdiction many a times do not decide the controversy and leave the liberty to the affected parties to move the competent authority by way of a representation and when the representation is not decided, the same is allowed to be challenged afresh since the same is treated as fresh cause of action. Any order or judgment which do not decide the controversy involved in a final and conclusive manner, the same cannot be treated as a final decision of the dispute so as to treat it as barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata. It perhaps, needs no mention that the same would operate as constructive res- judicata only if the controversy had been set at rest by delivering a conclusive judgment by either rejecting or allowing the relief. But the same admittedly was not done by the Tribunal. It perhaps, needs no mention that the same would operate as constructive res- judicata only if the controversy had been set at rest by delivering a conclusive judgment by either rejecting or allowing the relief. But the same admittedly was not done by the Tribunal. It is not doubt true that on the earlier occasion the finding in regard to discrimination was recorded by the Tribunal but in so far as the relief claimed by the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the same was not granted in a categorical and conclusive manner as a consequence of which the respondent No.1 although secured an order in her favour in so far as the merit of her plea is concerned, the relief was not granted to her as it was expected of the petitioner-Union of India to consider her representation in the light of [hose observations but it is more than obvious that the petitioner-Union of India side-tracked the issue although it could not have applied the rule selectively for a particular officer denying the benefit to a similarly situated candidate like the respondent No.1. In fact we fully agree with the observations of the Tribunal recorded in the impugned order that if the petitioner-Union of India was aggrieved of the findings recorded in her lavour regarding discrimination, it should have challenged the same at the appropriate time but instead of doing so, it conveniently slept over the matter and only when the petition for contempt was filed before the CAT, it came up with a convenient plea that her representation had been rejected. If a conscious decision, in fact, had been taken by the petitioner at the appropriate time, it could have rellected the bonafide of the petitioner but while it did not dispose of the representation of the petitioner by giving her option to change to an appropriate cadre, it also ignored the finding in regard to the discrimination and unreasonable classification recorded by the Tribunal. 11. We thus find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal and accordingly we dismiss this writ petition.Petition dismissed. *******