JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1744/2007. 2. The Petitioner had been offered appointment as an Assistant Commandant in the CISF but it appears that for one reason or the other he did not join. 3. By the impugned order, it was directed that the Petitioner may be accommodated in the above post if he reported to the appropriate authority before 29th August, 2008. 4. On 27th August, 2008, we had considered the matter and had given time to the Petitioner till 1st September, 2008 to join the CISF and now an affidavit has been filed by him that he has since joined the CISF. 5. In paragraph 1 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner has raised certain issues with regard to his pay scale, seniority, etc. and alternatively for allocating any other Group A service in which a vacancy might exist. 6. We find that the other issues have not been comprehensively dealt with by the Tribunal particularly with regard to his pay scale and seniority etc. Perhaps one of the reasons for this could be that the Petitioner had not complied with the order passed even by the Supreme Court for joining the CISF. 7. Now that the Petitioner has joined the CISF, we think that it would be appropriate if the Tribunal examines the grievances of the Petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Tribunal should also look into the question whether the Petitioner can be allocated a service other than the CISF. In our opinion, this issue is no longer open for re-consideration particularly in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court passed in IA No. 6/2007 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 13/2007 in Civil Appeal No. 5505-5507/2003 (decided on 21st September, 2007) in which the Supreme Court gave liberty to the Petitioner to file an Original Application before the Tribunal, if the occasion so arises, with regard to his appointment, seniority and other benefits in the CISF. 9. 9. This order was passed by the Supreme Court on a clarification application moved by the Petitioner in which one of the averments made by the Petitioner was to the effect that it would be in the interest of justice to allow him to re-agitate the issue of allocation of the job to him in an appropriate judicial forum. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to place reliance on paragraph 13 of the clarification application and so we reproduce it below: 13. That it be further noted that even otherwise on the basis of the informations received under the Right to Information Act, 2005; the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 4 in the Contempt Petition (C) No. 13/2007 pointing out that as per information received by him under the RTI Act, 2005 there were remaining vacancies in the OBC Category for CSE, 1996 in IRTS (Group A), DANIPS (Group B), IRAS (Group A) and IRPS (Group A) which were preference No. 6, 7, 10 and 13 of the Petitioner and much higher than the preference for the CISF which was at serial No. 17. Although, the Honble Court took note of the said contention vide its order dated 23/04/2007; the Contemnor by filing its reply in I.A. No. 4 mislead this Honble Court by saying that the vacancies as shown by the Petitioner were due to resignation/non joining and the DOPT is not concerned with said vacancies as it considers only those vacancies as remaining vacancies which were not initially allocated by the DOPT. The statement of the Contemnor was factually incorrect and misleading in view of the fact that in para 9 of its reply in I.A. No. 4 the Contemnor himself admits that all the 79 vacancies in the CISF were allocated to 79 selected candidates after the entire service allocation. The contention of the Contemnor is further falsified by the information provided by the CISF at page 126 of the paper book of the Contempt Petition. The Contemnor further mislead this Honble Court by saying that the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities do not intimate the DOPT with respect to the vacancies created due to non joining/resignation. The Contemnor further mislead this Honble Court by saying that the vacancies created due to non joining/resignation are carried forward by the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities in subsequent years. The Contemnor further mislead this Honble Court by saying that the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities do not intimate the DOPT with respect to the vacancies created due to non joining/resignation. The Contemnor further mislead this Honble Court by saying that the vacancies created due to non joining/resignation are carried forward by the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities in subsequent years. The Petitioner herein in his rejoinder in I.A. No. 4 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 13/2007 pointed out the inconsistencies/contradictions in the statement of the Contemnor; however, at the time of hearing on 07/09/2007 the same could not be pointed out and neither this Honble Court recorded any finding on the issues raised. Under the circumstances and in view of the fact that the issue with respect to the change in job could not be raised by the Petitioner in the Contempt Petition and in view of the fact that there is no finding by this Honble Court on the issue and in view of the fact that serious consequences will flow to the disadvantage of the Petitioner; it would be in the interest of justice to allow him to re-agitate the issue of allocation of job to him in appropriate judicial forum. It is respectfully submitted that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the Rule of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Even the law bends before justice. 10. The Petitioner had also made a prayer in the clarification application for a direction for seniority, pay scale and other consequential benefits as are available to his batch mates in Group A Civil Service and that he should not be put to any dis-advantage in his continuance of service in the CISF or in his promotions given the fact that he is a late entrant and had objected to joining the CISF. 11. It is in this background that the Supreme Court gave liberty to the Petitioner to file an Original Application with regard to his appointment and other benefits in the CISF. 12. It is quite clear to us that in view of the averments made in the clarification application, the prayer made in the clarification application and the order passed by the Supreme Court, that the only relief granted to the Petitioner was with reference to his joining the CISF. 12. It is quite clear to us that in view of the averments made in the clarification application, the prayer made in the clarification application and the order passed by the Supreme Court, that the only relief granted to the Petitioner was with reference to his joining the CISF. In our opinion, it is not at all open to the Petitioner to agitate his appointment to some service other than the CISF. 13. With these observations, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for a consideration on the other issues that have not been comprehensively dealt with by it. 14. The writ petition is disposed of.