Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 5.5.2006 Annexure P. 5 and order dated 18.7.2007, Annexure P. 13 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Commissionerate Bombay-2, on 17.5.1983. He was transferred to Chandigarh Commissionerate on 1.9.1986. In the seniority list as on 1.1.1997 he was placed at Sr. No. 220. Vide decision dated 29.5.1997, upgradation of 134 posts of Inspectors to the level of Superintendent Group `B was sanctioned for Chandigarh Commissionerate. 104 posts were allocated to general category and 30 to SC/ST category. While making appointments, candidates belonging to SC/ST category promoted on their own merit were considered against the reserved vacancies in violation of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 477, R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1995 SC 448. The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.10.2002, Annexure P.1, rejecting his representation and the CAT vide order dated 10.2.2004, Annexure P.2, allowed the claim of the petitioner in following terms : "5. Finding that the case of the applicant is fully covered at all fours by the decision of the Principal Bench of CAT (Annexure A-15) in the case of C.P. Jayant (supra), this O.A. is allowed to the extent that Annexure A-13 is quashed and set aside. Since the order of promotion 29.8.1997 (Annexure A-2) is neither under challenge nor any promoted person has been impleaded as a party in this O.A. we refrain ourselves from quashing the same. Since the order of promotion 29.8.1997 (Annexure A-2) is neither under challenge nor any promoted person has been impleaded as a party in this O.A. we refrain ourselves from quashing the same. However, official respondents are directed to reconsider the issue in terms of directions as contained in the case of C.P. Jayanat (supra) i.e., they shall count the reserved category candidates against general category posts who have been promoted on their own seniority and merit and not by virtue of any rule of reservation as per law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of RK Sabharwal (supra) and, after making such adjustments, they shall determine the number of reserved posts that should be filled up by SC/ST officers in the grade of Superintendents as per rules of reservation (in addition to the posts against which the officers of these communities were promoted on their own merit) and make offers of appointment/promotion in terms of rules and regulations on the subject. No costs." On 6.4.2005, the Review DPC was held and corrective steps were taken. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 challenged the order dated 6.5.2005. The petitioner was not impleaded as party. Claim of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was accepted by the CAT vide order dated 5.5.2006, Annexure P.5 Judgment dated 10.2.2004 which was in favour of the petitioner was held to be per incuriam. Operative part of the order is as under : "22. Be that as it may be, keeping in view the fact that other persons shown in the seniority list, since not before us, and in case the relief sought for by the applicants is allowed, they may likely to be affected. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter needs fresh consideration by the respondents, as discussed hereinabove. Thus, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to refer the matter to the concerned authority to examine the matter afresh in the light of our observations, as detailed hereinabove, after giving opportunity of being heard to all concerned and thereafter prepare fresh seniority list accordingly. Appropriate orders, duly communicated to the applicants also, be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order." 3. Appropriate orders, duly communicated to the applicants also, be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order." 3. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition in the first instance vide order dated 5.5.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner filed review application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.7.2007, Annexure P. 13. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that order dated 10.2.2004 in favour of the petitioner had become final and in the petition filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which was allowed vide order dated 5.5.2006, neither the order dated 10.2.2004 was challenged nor the same could be declared to be per incuriam by a Bench of equal strength without impleading the petitioner as a party and finding that reservation was not available in the process of upgradation of posts, was erroneous, as infact the upgradation amounted to promotion. 5. Even though, we had not issued notice, Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocate appeared for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who had also appeared before the CAT and supported the impugned order of the CAT by submitting that they challenged the order of Review DPC dated 6.4.2005 on being affected thereby and they had no grievance prior to that. They were not bound by the order dated 10.2.2004, as they were not party to the proceedings wherein the said order was passed. Moreover, the said order only required the matter to be reconsidered and was not required to be challenged. Only erroneous view taken while reconsidering the matter was required to be challenged. The upgradation of posts did not amount to promotion and the order of allocation of 30 seats for reserved category was not justified, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in its order dated 19.11.1998 to the following effect : "CA No. 3622/95. Heard counsel on both sides. The finding of Tribunal that the so called promotion as a result of re-distribution of posts is not promotion attracting reservation "on the facts of the case", appears to be based on good reasonings. On facts, it is seen that it is a case of upgradation on account of restructuring of the cadres, therefore, the question of reservation will not arise. On facts, it is seen that it is a case of upgradation on account of restructuring of the cadres, therefore, the question of reservation will not arise. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal." 6. We may make a brief reference to the three orders passed by the CAT. 7. The first order dated 10.2.2004, Annexure P. 2 was filed in an application filed by the petitioner relying upon judgment dated 8.3.1999 to the Principal Bench of the CAT in OA No. 2980/1997 (CP Jayant and others v. Union of India and others), holding that promotion of SC/ST officers on their own merit have to be counted against general posts and while holding that since persons promoted had not been impleaded as parties nor their promotions challenged, the official respondents were directed to reconsider the matter. 8. The second order of the CAT is order dated 5.5.2006, Annexure P. 5, challenging the order passed on reconsideration. The issue considered therein was that reservation was not applicable to upgradation of posts and on that ground, order for fresh consideration on that basis was passed. 9. The third order passed by the CAT is order dated 18.7.2007, Annexure P. 13, on review application filed by the petitioner. 10. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not have any merit. The order dated 10.2.2004, Annexure P. 2 which was in favour of the petitioner, only directed reconsideration by keeping in mind the principle that candidates belonging to reserved category promoted on their own merit had to be considered against general vacancies. The second order dated 5.5.2006, considered the question raised by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that there being no promotions, question of reservation did not arise. There was no bar to such a question being considered at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who were not parties in the earlier petition and were not bound thereby. The principle of referring the issue to larger bench applied only if a precedent was to be disregarded which was not the position involved. The order dated 10.2.2004 did not bind respondent Nos. 5 and 6 nor the same could be treated as a precedent on the issue whether reservation was applicable to upgradation of posts. The principle of referring the issue to larger bench applied only if a precedent was to be disregarded which was not the position involved. The order dated 10.2.2004 did not bind respondent Nos. 5 and 6 nor the same could be treated as a precedent on the issue whether reservation was applicable to upgradation of posts. The petitioner has not been able to show on merits that reservation policy was applicable when infact, it was merely a case of upgradation. The finding recorded in order dated 5.5.2006 clearly is that while upgrading 130 posts to the level of Superintendent, corresponding posts in the cadre of Inspectors were abolished. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to several judgments which have been duly considered by CAT and in view of finding that this was a case of upgradation of posts, the said judgments do not apply. The judgments relied upon are R.K. Sabharwal, Virpal Singh Chauhan (supra), S.I. Rooplal and another v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others, 2000(1) RSJ 336, Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, 2003(1) RSJ 543, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another v. Harish Kumar Purohit and others, (2003)5 SCC 480, Pardip Chandra Parija and others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others, 2002(1) RSJ 630, Sub- Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and others, (1992) 4 SCC 97, Usha Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, 1998(3) RSJ 326, UP Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh and others v. Daya Ram Saroj and others, 2007(1) RSJ 743, K. Manickaraj v. Union of India, 1997 SCC (L&S) 949, C.C. Padmanabhan and others v. The Director of Public Instructions and others, 1980(2) SLR 599, Director, General Rice Research Institution, Cuttack and another v. Shri Khetra Mohan Das, 1994(5) SLR 728, Tarsem Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1994(4) SLR 577, Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and other 2005(4) SCT 489 and Rajiv Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(4) SCT 943 (Raj.) Discussion on individual judgment is not called for, for the reasons already mentioned. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.