Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-These two writ petitions are directed against the Judgment dated 20.07.1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 240/1996, titled as Prem Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, by Judgment above, accepted the appeal and set aside the seniority list dated 12.09.1995. 2. The Writ Petition No. 2961/1998 is preferred by effected employee Shri Shyamlal and the Writ Petition No. 3985/1998 is filed by Union of India, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur and Divisional Personal Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur. 3. For adjudicating the writ petitions, the facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 2961/1998 preferred by Shri Shyamlal are taken into consideration. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Fireman in Northern Railway on 10.03.1964. The petitioner was promoted as Shunter and then as Driver (Goods Train) on 02.06.1979 and 27.07.1971 respectively. The petitioner qualified a written test conducted by Northern Railway for the purpose of selection to the post of Power Controller in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/-result of which was declared on 011.1980. According to the petitioner a panel of selected persons was declared by the Divisional Personal Officer, Jodhpur Division, Northern Railway, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the DPO") on 09.01.1981. A photostat copy of panel of selected persons declared on 09.01.1981 is also placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 2. In the said panel name of the petitioner does not appear as recommendation with regard to his candidature was kept in sealed cover due to pendency of disciplinary proceeding against him. The panel dated 09.01.1981 was consisting of names of five selected incumbents including Shri Mool Singh and Shri P.R. Soni. The DPO under an order dated 27.01.1982 promoted four empaneled persons under order dated 09.01.1981 as Power Controllers including Shri Mool Singh and Shri P.R. Soni. 5. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 05.02.1982 but was ordered to be reinstated in pursuance of directions given by Honble Supreme Court by Judgment dated 05.08.1983. The operative portion of the Judgment dated 05.08.1983 reads as under:- "(i) Employees who were dismissed under Rule 14(2) for having participated in the Loco Staff strike of 1981 shall be restored to their respective post within a period of three months from today. The operative portion of the Judgment dated 05.08.1983 reads as under:- "(i) Employees who were dismissed under Rule 14(2) for having participated in the Loco Staff strike of 1981 shall be restored to their respective post within a period of three months from today. (ii) (A) Since, more than three years have elapsed from the date the orders were found to be bad on merits by one of the Tribunal it is just and fair to direct the appellant to pay the employees compensation equivalent to three years salary inclusive of dearness allowance calculated on the scale of pay prevalent in the year the Judgment was delivered that is, in 1990. (b) This benefit shall be available even to those employees who have retired from service. In those cases where the employees are dead the compensation shall be paid to their dependents. The compensation shall be calculated on the scale prevalent three years immediately before the date of retirement or death. (iii) Although the employees shall not be entitled to any promotional benefit but they shall be given notional continuity from the date of termination till the date of restoration for purposes of calculation of pensionary benefits. This benefit shall be available to retired employees as well as to those who are dead by calculating the period till date of retirement or death." 6. In light of directions given by Honble Supreme Court the petitioner become disentitled for getting promotions for the period he remained under dismissal i.e., from 06.02.1981 to 05.08.1983. On reinstatement the inquiry which was pending against the petitioner at the time of his dismissal was reinitiated and he was punished with reduction to next lower grade for a period of five months by an order dated 09.08.1994, however, the order imposing penalty was set aside by revisional authority by an order dated 010.1997. The petitioner was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. 7. On being exonerated the recommendation which was kept in sealed cover with regard to empanelment of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Power Controller was opened and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 5 in the revised panel above Shri Mool Singh and Shri P.R. Soni who were promoted as Power Controllers under the order dated 27.01.1981. The revised panel was declared on 16.05.1995, copy of which is available on record as Annexure A/5. No. 5 in the revised panel above Shri Mool Singh and Shri P.R. Soni who were promoted as Power Controllers under the order dated 27.01.1981. The revised panel was declared on 16.05.1995, copy of which is available on record as Annexure A/5. Promotion was accorded to the petitioner as Power Controller by an order dated 112.1997 with effect from the date the persons junior to him were promoted as Power Controllers. .8. After placing the petitioner on panel the petitioner was also assigned with seniority in the cadre of Power Controllers in the seniority list dated 12.09.1995. In the said seniority list the petitioner was shown senior to respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. The respondent No. 5 was promoted as Power Controller w.e.f. 28.01.1985 whereas respondents No. 6 and 7 were promoted as such with effect from 22.02.1995. The respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 being aggrieved by their placement in seniority list below the petitioner submitted objections but the same were turned down by the DPO vide communication dated 01.07.1996. The relevant portion of the contents of communication dated 01.07.1996 reads as under:- ."In reference to your above cited representation, it is informed that the name of Sh. Shyamlal Sharma, PRC grade Rs. 2,000-3,200(RPS), who was dismissed from Rly. service under Rule 14(ii)of DAR-1968 and was reinstated in Rly. service as per Honble Supreme Court Judgment was interpolated in the PRC panel declared in the year 1981 by opening the sealed cover with the approval of competent authority as he was assigned seniority as Goods Driver by taking into account his service as Goods Driver rendered before his dismissal as per clarification received under GM(P)/NDUSs letter No. 50-SC/SLP/92/LCP/Pt.II/ E(D&A)Inf ./Bd.14(ii)/90/Pt.II dated 05.09.1995. Accordingly he was called for selection to the post of PRC grade 2,000-3,200/-(RPS) and was placed on the panel at merit No. 7/93. So the seniority position assigned to Sh. Shyam Lal Sharma PRC grade Rs. 2,000-3,200/-(RPS) vide this office letter dated 12.09.1985 is correct." .9. The respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 being aggrieved by seniority list dated 12.09.1995 and communication dated 01.07.1996 preferred an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur contending therein that the respondents railway conducted selection proceedings for appointment by way of promotion to the post of Power Controller result of which was declared on 05.01.1995 and panel was declared on 10.01.1995. In the panel they were at higher pedestal and present petitioner Shyamlal stood at Sr. No. 7 below them, as such he could not be placed at higher footing in the seniority list pertaining to the .post of Power Controller. It was also contended in the original application that seniority of present petitioner Shri Shyamlal could not be restored by giving promotions to him by his placement in the panel prepared in the year 1981 as he was dismissed under Rule 14(2) of the Railway (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which was set aside by Honble Supreme Court with condition that no promotion shall be given to him for the period he remained under dismissal. It was also averred in the original application that seniority could not be assigned to the present petitioner as after declaration of panel he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a major punishment was imposed upon him. 10. A reply to the original application was filed by the Railways. The petitioner being respondent in the original application also filed a reply to the same. The petitioner alongwith reply placed on record a copy of panel dated 09.01.1981 as Annexure R/4/2 (which is now on record as Annexure A/2). The petitioner also placed a copy of revised panel dated 16.05.1995 whereby he was empaneled in the panel of selected candidates for appointment by way of selection to the post of Power Controller. The petitioner in reply to the original application also contended that he stand promoted to the post of Power Controller under the order dated 112.1997 by acting upon the revised panel dated 16.05.1995. 11. In reply to the original application preferred by Railways the date of declaring panel of selected candidates was shown as 27.05.1981 and not as 09.01.1981. However, in Writ Petition No. 3985/1998 it is clarified that panel was declared on 09.01.1981 and not on 27.05.1981. According to the averments contained in the writ petition referred above the panel dated 09.01.1981 was enlarged by an order dated 27.05.1981. However, in Writ Petition No. 3985/1998 it is clarified that panel was declared on 09.01.1981 and not on 27.05.1981. According to the averments contained in the writ petition referred above the panel dated 09.01.1981 was enlarged by an order dated 27.05.1981. The petitioner as well as the railways in reply to the original application raised objection with regard to local standi of the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 to challenge the seniority list by way of filing original application on the count that the respondents No. 5 and 6 had appeared in selection proceedings alongwith the petitioner in the year 1980 but failed to qualify the same whereas the applicant No. 3 was not even eligible to face selection in the year 1980. 12. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing the parties accepted the original application. The Tribunal while accepting the original application observed that the penal of selection for the post of Power Controller was declared on 27.05.1981 and not on 09.01.1981. The finding of the Tribunal is based on a document Annexure R/4/3 annexed with the reply to original application filed by present petitioner. The Tribunal corroborated this fact from the document dated 11.09.1992 though the same is not available on record of the Tribunal. The document dated 11.09.1992 is placed on record alongwith reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 13. The Tribunal also observed that the panel was declared on 27.05.1981 and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 06.02.1981, therefore, in view of the directions given by Honble Supreme Court he was not entitled for promotion. According to the Tribunal the official respondents wrongly opened the sealed cover and also wrongly promoted the petitioner as Power Controller. The learned Tribunal on basis of factual back ground as stated above gave the findings as under:- "In final analysis we find that; .(i) the official respondents should not have opened the sealed cover containing the result of the respondent No. 4 of the selection held on 07.09.1980. The learned Tribunal on basis of factual back ground as stated above gave the findings as under:- "In final analysis we find that; .(i) the official respondents should not have opened the sealed cover containing the result of the respondent No. 4 of the selection held on 07.09.1980. .(ii) the official respondents should not have given promotion to respondent No. 4 to the post of Power Controller from 09.01.1981, (iii) respondent No. 4 was not entitled to any promotion from 06.02.1981 to 22.09.1993 (period of dismissal from service) and upto 110.1994 (finalisation of the departmental enquiry) and thereafter till the penalty was over, (iv) even after the penalty was over, respondent No. 4 was not entitled to get the benefit of promotion from the panel of the selection held on 07.09.1980." 14. The Tribunal after giving these findings held that the seniority could not be assigned to the petitioner from the year 1981 as he was empaneled under a panel dated 10.01.1995 wherein he was shown junior than the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. The learned Tribunal accordingly set aside the seniority list dated 12.09.1995 and ordered to modify the same by placing the present petitioner below the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. 15. The instant writ petitions are preferred being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 20.07.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 16. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the Judgment dated 20.07.1998 deserves to be quashed being perverse as learned Tribunal by over looking material documents available on record reached at the conclusion that the panel of selected incumbents for the post of Power Controllers was declared on 27.05.1995. It is contended by the Counsel that the panel dated 09.01.1981 was available on record as Annexure R/4/2 but the same has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal based its finding on two documents out of which one document dated 11.1992 was not part of the record before the Tribunal. It is also contended that another document dated 16.05.1995 though refers the order dated 27.05.1981 but it no where mentions that the panel was first declared on that day. The Tribunal based its finding on two documents out of which one document dated 11.1992 was not part of the record before the Tribunal. It is also contended that another document dated 16.05.1995 though refers the order dated 27.05.1981 but it no where mentions that the panel was first declared on that day. It is also contended that as the panel of the selected candidates was declared on 09.01.1981 and promotions were given to the empaneled persons by order dated 27.01.1981 i.e., before 06.02.1981 the date on which the petitioner was dismissed, therefore, the respondents Railways rightly promoted the petitioner as Power Controller from the date persons junior to him were promoted as such. Counsel for the petitioners also urged that no challenge was given by the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 before the Tribunal to the order promoting the petitioner as Power Controller, in spite of that the Tribunal gave a finding that the promotion could not have been given to the petitioner. 17. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 while defending the Judgment impugned dated 20.07.1998 emphasized that the panel of the selected candidates was declared after dismissal of the petitioner and, therefore, in view of direction given by Honble Supreme Court by Judgment dated 05.08.1983 there was no occasion for the official respondent i.e., Railways to promote the petitioner. 18. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. 19. Learned Tribunal accepted the original application by giving a specific finding that the panel of selected incumbents for promotion to the post of Power Controller was declared on 27.05.1981 i.e., after dismissal of the petitioner on 06.02.1981, therefore, no promotion could have been given to him. While reaching to this conclusion learned Tribunal relied upon a document dated 16.05.1995 placed on record by the present petitioner alongwith reply to the original application to substantiate the contention that in revised panel he was placed at Sr. No. 5 above the persons junior to him and on basis of that revised panel, promotion was accorded by official respondents to him as Power Controller. The document dated 16.05.1995 though refers 27.05.1981 as the date of panel, however, it no where mentions that this was the date on which the panel at the first was declared. The petitioner alongwith the reply also placed on record a copy of the panel dated 09.01.1981 as Annexure R/4/2. The document dated 16.05.1995 though refers 27.05.1981 as the date of panel, however, it no where mentions that this was the date on which the panel at the first was declared. The petitioner alongwith the reply also placed on record a copy of the panel dated 09.01.1981 as Annexure R/4/2. Learned Tribunal in entire Judgment no where referred and discussed the document dated 09.01.1981. A perusal of the document dated 09.01.1981 makes it crystal clear that it is the document whereby panel of selected candidates pertaining to the post of Power Controller was declared by the DPO. 20. Learned Tribunal also relied upon a document dated 11.1992 to reach at a conclusion that the panel concern was declared on 27.05.1981. We do not find the document dated 11.1992 available on record of the original application. Be that as it may, a copy of the said document is placed on record of the instant writ petition as Annexure R/5/2 alongwith reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. Fromperusal of the order dated 11.1992 it is apparent that it is not an order of promotion to Shri Guman Singh as observed by the Tribunal. The document dated 11.1992 is a seniority list wherein name of Shri Guman Singh appears at Sr. No. 1. It is not at all clear from perusal of order dated 11.1992 that panel of selected candidates was declared on 27.05.1981. The date 27.05.1981 is shown as the date of selection/promotion. The document dated 11.1992 is not at all useful in reaching at a definite conclusion that the panel was declared on 27.05.1981. On the contrary, the document dated 09.01.1981 (Annexure A/2) in present writ petition and Annexure R/4/2 in original application) in quite unambiguous terms establishes the fact that the panel of selected incumbents for the post of Power Controllers was declared by the said documents on 09.01.1981. We failed to understand as to why the Tribunal while adjudicating the issue over looked and ignored the document dated 09.01.1981 which was very much available on record of the Tribunal. In view of the document dated 09.01.1981 there was no necessity to draw presumption on basis of other documents to determine the date of declaring the panel. 21. We failed to understand as to why the Tribunal while adjudicating the issue over looked and ignored the document dated 09.01.1981 which was very much available on record of the Tribunal. In view of the document dated 09.01.1981 there was no necessity to draw presumption on basis of other documents to determine the date of declaring the panel. 21. We are of considered opinion that when a copy of the original order itself was available on record there was no need to draw presumption with regard to the date of declaration of panel on basis of ancillary documents. The documents Annexure A/2 (Annexure R/4/2 on the record of original application) dated 09.01.1981 itself is the document whereby a panel of selected incumbents was declared. 22. The finding given by the Tribunal to the effect that the panel of selected incumbents was declared on 27.05.1981 is running contrary to the document dated 09.01.1981 and, therefore, the same is erroneous. 23. The another aspect required to be considered is that the promotion to the persons junior than the petitioner viz. Shri Mool Singh and Shri P.R. Soni was given by order dated 27.01.1981. The order of promotion dated 27.01.1981 is available on record as Annexure A/2-A. This fact is not at all denied by the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. The Railways also admitted this fact. In light of it it is quite clear that the persons junior than the petitioner were promoted as Power Controllers before 06.02.1981, the date on which the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 14(2) of the Railway (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Honble Supreme Court held the petitioner disentitled for grant of promotion for the period he remained under dismissal. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 06.02.1981, therefore, the direction given by Supreme Court not to promote the petitioner was having no consequence as the candidature of the petitioner was to be considered from the date prior to 06.02.1981 as the persons junior to him were promoted as Power Controller by an order dated 27.01.1981. The Tribunal in its Judgment impugned nowhere considered the date on which the persons junior than the petitioner were promoted as Power Controllers. The Tribunal in its Judgment impugned nowhere considered the date on which the persons junior than the petitioner were promoted as Power Controllers. In fact the Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the panel of selected candidates was declared on 27.05.1981 and at that time the petitioner was facing the penalty of dismissal, thus, in light of directions given by Honble Supreme Court he could not have been promoted as Power Controller. The error committed by the Tribunal is apparent in view of the documents dated 09.01.1981 (Annexure A/2) and the order dated 27.01.1981(Annexure A/2-A). 24. We also do not find any force in the contention of the Counsel for the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 that no promotion could have been given to the petitioner as he suffered a major penalty under the Railway (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner could not be taken into consideration and the official respondents rightly ignored the same as the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was set aside by the revisional authority. In view of the order passed by the revisional authority in fact there was no penalty upon the petitioner on basis of which candidature of the petitioner could have been ignored for promotion to the post of Power Controller. 25. In view of whatever stated above, these writ petitions succeed, accordingly the same are allowed and the Judgment impugned dated 20.07.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 240/1996 is hereby quashed. 26. No order as to costs.