Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. K.V. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. M.A. Abdul Wahab for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) representing the official respondents and have perused the records. 2. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 24496 of 2001 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT] dated 05. 2001 made in Diary No. 1658 of 2001 and confirmed by the CAT in R.A. No. 24 of 2001 vide order dated 28. 2001 and for a further direction to the CAT to consider his O.A. on merits. The petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Sri NKC Government Higher Secondary School, Kurusukuppam. He filed an Original Application for setting aside the seniority list dated 19 / 24. 2005 and the consequential order dated 08.02.2001 as well as to declare that he was eligible for promotion to the post of PG Teacher with effect from August 1978 and for a further consequential direction to promote him as Vice Principal and Principal with all benefits. 3. The Registry of the CAT raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the O.A. on the ground of non-joinder of parties and also the multiple reliefs claimed. Therefore, the matter was placed before the CAT together with the Registrys objection in Diary No. 1658 of 2001. The CAT held that the earlier proceedings had concluded the issue and gave finality to the validity of the DPC held on 08. 1978. Once again, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 479 of 1991 and that was also disposed of by a common order dated 211. 1994. A review of the said order was also dismissed. In that view of the matter, the CAT held that the previous order will operate as res judicata and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair [ 1994 (2) SCC 14 ]. It also further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hope Plantations v. Taluk Land Board Peermedu and another [ 1999 (5) SCC 590 ]. The CAT rejected the argument of the petitioner that the principle of res judicata will apply only to Civil Courts and held that the same principle will apply to all other forums. In that view of the matter, the O.A. was dismissed as it was barred by res judicata. The CAT rejected the argument of the petitioner that the principle of res judicata will apply only to Civil Courts and held that the same principle will apply to all other forums. In that view of the matter, the O.A. was dismissed as it was barred by res judicata. Even the Review Application was also dismissed on 28. 2001. It is against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Notice was ordered on 010. 2007. Similarly, W.P. No. 30091 is filed against the order in Diary No. 977 of 2004 for consequential benefits. W.P. No. 30092 of 2004 is filed against the order in Diary No. 978 of 2004 dated 06. 2004. W.P. No. 35568 of 2004 is filed against the order dated 210. 2004 in O.A. No. 466 of 2003. 5. Diary Nos. 977 and 978 of 2004 were dismissed by a common order dated 06. 2004 by holding that the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to declare its earlier orders dated 12.01.1989, 30.8.1991, 211. 1994 in T.A. No. 95 of 1987, O.A. Nos. 463 of 1989 and 479 of 1991 respectively as nullity and that they should be recalled as not maintainable and it followed the Full Bench judgment of the CAT, Bangalore Bench reported in 1987 (3) ATC 328 [John Lucas and another v. Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer, S.C. Railway and others]. In that order, the CAT held that the it lacked power to set aside its own order. 6. The petitioner once again filed W.P. No. 35568 of 2004 against the order passed in O.A. No. 466 of 2003. The prayer in that petition was to call for the records pertaining to memorandum dated 35. 2002 and to set aside the seniority list of Vice Principals. The CAT held that the issue relating to the earlier seniority list was already concluded and given effect to and the present argument once again raking up the old issue, is not maintainable under the principles of res judicata and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he ought to have moved the High Court against those orders and not to re-agitate the matter once again before the CAT. 7. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that earliest case, viz., T.A. No. 95 of 1987 was obtained by fraud played by the official respondents by producing manipulated DPC records. 7. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that earliest case, viz., T.A. No. 95 of 1987 was obtained by fraud played by the official respondents by producing manipulated DPC records. Therefore, the CAT was wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 8. In this context, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, [ (2000) 3 SCC 581 ]. He also drew the attention of this Court to the following passage found in paragraph 17, which reads as follows: Para 16: "Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim." Though there may not be any quarrel over the proposition laid therein that when a fraud was committed on a judicial forum, the said forum can exercise its inherent power and can recall its orders obtained by playing fraud. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was not helpless and he ought to have moved this Court at the earliest point of time about the fraud being played on the Tribunal. Having allowed the said order to become final and be implemented by the respondents, he cannot go on commit a raid on the CAT by filing successive applications for the very same relief. We are not persuaded to set aside the orders of the CAT under challenge on the specious plea made by the petitioner that he was a victim of the fraud committed by the respondents that too, by an order which was obtained as early as on 12.01.1989 in T.A. No. 95 of 1987. No useful purpose will be served in entertaining any of the petition filed by the petitioner. 10. In the light of the above, the writ petitions failed and are devoid of merits. Accordingly, they stand dismissed. Though we would have been justified in imposing cost, due to the persuasion made by the learned Senior Counsel, we are restrained from doing so. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.