A. K. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE subject matter of these two appeals would depend upon proper interpretation of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of H. S. Grewal v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 1997 (11) supreme Court Cases, page 758. ( 2 ) THE subject matter of dispute before the Apex Court related to seniority of officers in the rank of Commandant/security Officer/ assistant Inspector General/deputy Director/divisional Security. Officer in Railway Protection Force. Under 1974 Rules initially, the recruitment was to the post of Assistant Commandant/assistant security Officer in Class II, Group-B. The next promotional post was commandant/assistant Inspector General/security Officer in Class i, Group-A. The promotion was by way of selection through the departmental Promotion Committee. Under the rules, a person putting eight years regular service in the post of Assistant Commandant was entitled to come within the zone of consideration for promotion to the next promotional post. In Class-II, Group-B, 30% were direct recruits, 60% by way of promotion from a lower post and 10% by way of transfer. Under 1981 Rules, direct recruitment to the post of Assistant commandant (Class-II, Group-B) was completely stopped and such post was being filled up by promotees from the lower post and intermediate post was created Class-I where the promotees' from the lower post were placed giving a junior scale in Class-I, Group-A. The recruitment to the intermediate post was 40% by promotion of Assistant commandants putting three year regular service, 60% by direct recruit through UPSC. The next promotion was in Group A Class-I giving senior pay scale. ( 3 ) DISPUTE before the Apex Court was between two groups of officers. The first group were recruited prior to the introduction of 1981 Rules to the post of Assistant Commandant Class II, Group B who by the time 1981 Rules came into force had completed several years of service as assistant Commandant Class II, Group B and were awaiting further promotion as Commandant' Class 1, Group A. Regular promotions were not had since 1981. The incumbents were stagnating in the said post for several years. Even the officers who had been promoted ad hoc basis completed five years of ad hoc service in the cadre and were expecting the next promotional post. There had been complication with regard to fixation of their seniority after introduction of 1981 rules. The incumbents were stagnating in the said post for several years. Even the officers who had been promoted ad hoc basis completed five years of ad hoc service in the cadre and were expecting the next promotional post. There had been complication with regard to fixation of their seniority after introduction of 1981 rules. In 1990, notification was issued that they would be given promotion to the intermediate post being Group A, Class I junior scale and then promoting them to the post of Commandant in Class I, Group A senior scale on ad hoc basis. This created a dispute between this group with the other group who were direct recruits in the post of Class 1, Group a after 1981 Rules came into force. ( 4 ) THIS controversy resulted in protacted litigation before many High courts including this Court. The Apex Court ultimately resolved the dispute by prescribing a guideline inter alia asking the Central government to consider both the groups for promotion by holding DPC on yearly basis meaning thereby the Central Government was obliged to reckon the vacancy which arose in the promotional post year to year and consider the eligible candidates as per the guidelines given by the apex Court year wise and filling them up through a promotional process. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court elaborately discussed the controversy and ultimately came to the conclusion and gave a solution to the problem. While doing so, the Apex Court relied on two circulars of the Union public Service Commission dated December 10, 1991 and August 3, 1992. ( 6 ) THE Central Government complied with the directions of this apex Court. While doing so they took into account the yearwise vacancies and held DPC and ultimately gave promotion and filled up the promotional post which became vacant year to year after considering all the eligible candidates at a time which gave rise to a further dispute. One of the aggrieved groups approached the learned single Judge by filling the above writ petition. The other group similarly circumstanced approached the Apex Court by way of a clarificatory application. The Apex Court dismissed the clarificatory application during the pendency of the above writ petition before the leaned single judge. The order of the Apex Court is appearing at page 276 of the paper book. The other group similarly circumstanced approached the Apex Court by way of a clarificatory application. The Apex Court dismissed the clarificatory application during the pendency of the above writ petition before the leaned single judge. The order of the Apex Court is appearing at page 276 of the paper book. The relevant extract is quoted below: in our opinion, the grievance of the petitioners appears to be the result of an action by the respondents subsequent to the judgment of this Court dated 27. 8. 97. It will be open to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Interdictory applications are dismissed. " ( 7 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the provisional seniority list so prepared by the respondent authority was made subject matter of challenge. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition the list was made final. The writ petitioner/respondents challenged the final list by filling supplementary affidavit. ( 8 ) THE learned single Judge by painstaking and detailed Judgment and order dated March 19, 2003 appearing at page 272-527 of the paper book allowed the writ petition and quashed the provisional list. Both the parties applied for review. The respondent/writ petitioner applied for review on the ground that since the provisional list was made final during the pendency of the writ petition that should also be quashed. The other review application was filed by the Union of India on the ground that the case made out in writ petition that Union considered the officers serving and in position as on April 1, 1993 only and not in consideration of the officers in position serving at the material point of time and falling within the zone of consideration during the period 1981 to 1985 and retired subsequently was rejected by the Apex Court. Such submission of Union was not considered by Their Lordship. The second ground was that against purported publication of provisional list representation had been made by the affected class pointing out anomalies and irregularities which was rejected outrightly by the Apex court and as such could not have been considered by His Lordship. ( 9 ) HIS Lordship allowed the application for review made by the respondent/writ petitioners and quashed the final list, however, dismissed the other application for review, made by Union of India. ( 9 ) HIS Lordship allowed the application for review made by the respondent/writ petitioners and quashed the final list, however, dismissed the other application for review, made by Union of India. ( 10 ) AGAINST His Lordship's Judgment and order in the main writ petition as well as in the review applications, two appeals were filed one by the Union and other by the private respondents in the writ petition. Both the appeals were heard by us on the above mentioned dates. ( 11 ) MR. Dinesh Chandra Roy learned counsel appearing for Union of India contended that the issue raised in the writ petition was not available to the writ petitioners therein as those were hit by principles of resjudicata as Apex Court did consider those grievance and ultimately rejected those as would appear from the Judgment in Grewal's case. Mr. Roy, also contended that the learned Judge could not have quashed the final list without the writ petition being amended. ( 12 ) IN support of his contention Mr. Roy, cited the following decisions: (i) All India Reporter 1986, Supreme Court, Page 1455 (G. K. Dudani and Ors. v. S. D. Sharma and Ors.) (ii) All India Reporter 1977, Supreme Court, Page 392 (Y. B. Patil and ors. v. Y. L. Patil), (iii) 2000 (2), Calcutta High Court Notes, Page 139 {paramanand agarwal and Ors. v. Sudera Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ann) (iv) 1989 (3) Supreme Court Cases, Page 151 (M/s. Kesho Ram and co. and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.) ( 13 ) MR. Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the other appeal filed by the private respondents in the writ petition contended that once the Supreme Court resolved the issue in Grewal's case the respondent/writ petitioners could not have moved the learned single Judge. The remedy only was by way of review before the Apex Court if they were aggrieved by the said order or by way of clarificatory application or contempt if they accepted the said judgment and wanted implementation thereof. Mr. Moitra, also contended that since the clarificatory application made by them was dismissed by the Apex Court the learned Judge could not have dealt with the issue once more. Mr. Mr. Moitra, also contended that since the clarificatory application made by them was dismissed by the Apex Court the learned Judge could not have dealt with the issue once more. Mr. Moitra termed the other part of the order of the Apex Court appearing at page 276 as a courtesy extended to the applicants who approached the Apex Court with that application and such portion could not be read in isolation and in any event could not give scope to the learned Judge to entertain and decide the writ petition. ( 14 ) MR. Moitra also contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the provisional list was prepared in terms of the direction of the Apex Court. The aggrieved parties were to make their grievance before the directions appropriate authority in terms of the, directions of the Supreme Court. Hence, the writ petition could not be held to be maintainable and should not have been entertained. In support of his contention, Mr. Moitra relied on 1997 (3) Supreme Court cases, page 641 (R. S. Ajara and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Ors. ). ( 15 ) MR. Moitra further contended that in case the retirees were not considered they could have approached His Lordship. Once, the retirees did not make any grievance the respondent/writ petitioner could not have espoused the cause of the retirees. In support or such contention, Mr. Moitra relied on 1993 (4) Supreme Court Cases, page 119 (R. K. Jain v. Union of India) and All India Reporter, 1971, Supreme court, Page 385 (Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H. M. Seervai ). ( 16 ) MR. Moitra also supported the contention made by Mr. Roy on the principle of res judicata. On this count he cited the decision of this apex Court reported in 2005 (7) Supreme Court Cases, Page 190 (Ishwar dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector ). Mr. Moitra also contended that it was not open to the learned Judge to examine the provisional list sitting on appeal over it. The writ Court was only entitled to examine the decision making process and not the decision. ( 17 ) MR. Moitra lastly contended that once there was substantial compliance, the writ Court should not have interfered with the ultimate decision of the authority. The writ Court was only entitled to examine the decision making process and not the decision. ( 17 ) MR. Moitra lastly contended that once there was substantial compliance, the writ Court should not have interfered with the ultimate decision of the authority. In support of such submission, he relied upon All India Reporter 1990, Supreme Court, Page 1098 (Union of India v. M. P. Singh and Ors.) in support of his above contentions, Mr. Moitra also cited the following decisions: (i) 2004 (5), Supreme Court Cases, page 568 (State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar) (ii) 2004 (12), Supreme Court Cases, page 645 (Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Ann v. State of Gujarat and Ors.) (iii) 2004 (10), Supreme Court Cases, page 201 (State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors.) (iv) 1994 (6), Supreme Court Cases, page 651 (TATA Celular v. Union of India) (v) All India Reporter, 1980, Supreme Court, page 379 (The Tamil nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.) (vi) All India Reporter, 2001, Supreme Court, page 1447 (M/s. Ugar sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors.) ( 18 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioners contended that once the Grewql's case decided the issue of seniority and framed a guideline for the union of India to have the promotional process completed any subsequent irregularity and/or infirmity in such promotional process could be brought in by way of an independent writ petition as it gave rise to fresh cause of action. ( 19 ) MR. Mukherjee, further contended that the writ petitioners approached this Court on two-fold grounds namely. e. , guidelines in grewal's case was not followed and nine promotees were assigned seniority without following the appropriate rules prescribed therefor. ( 20 ) ON the issue of fresh cause of action Mr. Mukherjee relied on the Apex Court decision reported in 1996 (6), Supreme Court Cases, page 291 (J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors.) Mr. Mukherjee also relied on the Apex Court decision reported in 1995 (4), Supreme Court cases, page 246 (Vinod Kr. Sangal v. Union of India and Ors.) ( 21 ) ON perusal of Grewal Judgment it would appear that a guideline was prescribed by the Apex Court. Mukherjee also relied on the Apex Court decision reported in 1995 (4), Supreme Court cases, page 246 (Vinod Kr. Sangal v. Union of India and Ors.) ( 21 ) ON perusal of Grewal Judgment it would appear that a guideline was prescribed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed filling up of yearwise vacancies on the basis of the recommendation of UPSC. The yearwise vacancy could only be determined by taking into consideration the vacancy which arose in that particular year and including the existing vacancies available as on that date. This could only be filled up by considering the eligible candidates available at that time. In the instant case, for about fifteen years no promotional process was had. The Apex Court directed yearwise consideration meaning thereby the Union was to fill up the post by taking into consideration only those candidates who became eligible for the said promotional process on the date when those posts became vacant. The learned judge approached the problem from that angle. We do not find any scope for interference on that score. ( 22 ) ON the issue of res judicata and/or maintainability we do not find any support from the decisions cited on behalf of the appellants to support their contention. The writ petitioners approached the writ court with a grievance that the guideline in Grewal's case was not followed. One aggrieved group approached the Apex Court. The Apex court asked them to approach the appropriate forum. It is not possible for the Apex Court to consider all future consequences when the lis was disposed of by them by framing the guidelines. The effect of the said Judgment in the subsequent action of the respondent authorities can be considered in an independent proceeding brought on the basis of a fresh cause of action. Here, the respondent/writ petitioners felt aggrieved by the action on the part of the Union while preparing the provisional list. They approached the writ Court for quashing of the same. Whether their grievance were genuine or not was to be considered on merits. The learned Judge did so. The writ petition, in our opinion, was squarely maintainable and the contentions made contrary thereto are rejected. They approached the writ Court for quashing of the same. Whether their grievance were genuine or not was to be considered on merits. The learned Judge did so. The writ petition, in our opinion, was squarely maintainable and the contentions made contrary thereto are rejected. ( 23 ) ON the issue of final gradation list we are of the view that once the provisional list was under challenge and the same attained finality during the pendency of the writ petition the learned Judge should have taken into consideration such factor at the time of delivery of the judgment in the writ proceeding His Lordship, however, missed that issue which was rectified by the order passed in the review application. We also do not find any scope of interference therein. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.