Judgment :- (K. Chandru, J.) Heard the arguments of Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for Mr. Ravindranath, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Karthick Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 09. 1997 made in O.A. Nos. 295 of 1995 and 493 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT], the Union of India and the Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department have filed the two writ petitions. 3. The contesting respondents lead by A.S. Anandram and others filed O.A. No. 295 of 1995 and V.S. Thirunavukkarasu and others filed O.A. No. 493 of 1995. In both the Original Applications, the challenge was made to the seniority lists of Executive Engineers issued on 12.01.1994 and 211. 1994 in the case of Electrical Wing and the seniority lists dated 19.01.1994, 20.5.1994 and 20.10.1994 in the case of Civil Engineering Wing and also O.Ms. Dated 04.01.1997 and 05.02.1997 were also challenged. The contesting respondents also sought for preparation of respective seniority lists by excluding the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in the Central Public Works Department by giving retrospective effect from 30.10.1972. 4. Before the CAT, a common reply statement dated 212. 1995 was filed by the petitioners and in that, an objection was taken by stating that the contesting respondents were raking up an issue, which was settled before 1972 and their action is barred by limitation. It was also stated that no records prior to the year 1972 are available with the petitioners and the promotion of Diploma holder Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers were continuing from the very beginning. A detailed analysis of the settled position was listed out in the reply statement dated 20.12.1995. 5. It was also stated that no records prior to the year 1972 are available with the petitioners and the promotion of Diploma holder Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers were continuing from the very beginning. A detailed analysis of the settled position was listed out in the reply statement dated 20.12.1995. 5. Taking cue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5363 of 1990 [J.N. Goesl and others v. Union of India and others], which granted liberty to aggrieved persons over the promotion of any of the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers to the cadre of Executive Engineers after filing O.A. No. 704 of 1988 and prior to coming into force of 1996 Rules, to agitate the said grievance in the competent forum, the CAT held that since the seniority list was published for the first time in the year 1994, the Original Applicants can be allowed to be agitated. It was also held that the respondents should be directed to review adhoc promotions made already prior to 1996 amendment to the Rules. The CAT also held that in view of the spate of litigations over the period, 1994 seniority list should be quashed and the matter should be sent for reconsideration in the light of the order dated 14.01.1967 passed by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, the seniority list was quashed. 6. When the writ petitions were filed, interim order was granted by this Court on 17. 1998 and the stay is still in operation. We are of the opinion that the CAT was wrong in reading into the judgment rendered in Goels case (cited supra), more than what has been stated therein. The judgment of the Supreme Court confined to promotion made to the Grade of Executive Engineer after filing of O.A. No. 704 of 1988 before the Tribunal. Thus, the regular promotions made prior to 1988 are outside the scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The CAT, without reference to the scope of the Supreme Courts judgment, had set aside several seniority lists. 7. The seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) was issued on 19.01.1994 and was finalized on 20.5.1994 after review of regular panels made upto 1971 in respect of the Executive Engineers promoted from the Assistant Engineers stream. The CAT, without reference to the scope of the Supreme Courts judgment, had set aside several seniority lists. 7. The seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) was issued on 19.01.1994 and was finalized on 20.5.1994 after review of regular panels made upto 1971 in respect of the Executive Engineers promoted from the Assistant Engineers stream. The aforesaid review was done by the petitioners in compliance with the directions of the order of the CAT dated 30.12.1992. The seniority list of Executive Engineer (Electrical) issued on 19. 1994 was based upon a review of DPC panel up to the year 1971 is outside the scope of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Goels case. Similarly, the seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) dated 20.10.1994 and Executive Engineer (Electrical) dated 211. 1994 were issued after holding yearwise DPC in 1994 for vacancies pertaining to the period 28. 1980 to 33. 1994 in respect of Executive Engineer (Civil) and 210. 1977 to 33. 1994 in respect of Executive Engineer (Electrical). The Department also initiated action to review and had referred the matter to the Union Public Service Commission for the same. 8. The CAT failed to take note of these circumstances and had set aside the entire seniority list of Executive Engineers. We do not think that the Tribunal was correct in reopening the entire issue all over again without there being any justification either from the orders of the Supreme Court in Goels case or from any other new cause of action. It is not as if the Supreme Court has given a complete go by to the limitation prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995 to reopen all the past issues. 9. The impact of the CATs order, if allowed to be implemented, will create a chaos and will unsettle the settled position. The cause of action of the contesting respondents never arose after the orders of the Supreme Court but long prior to the orders passed by the Supreme Court and they are also guilty of laches and delay. 10. In that view of the matter, both the writ petitions will stand allowed. The common order dated 09. 1997 passed by the CAT in O.A. Nos. 295 of 1995 and 493 of 1995 will stand set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.