Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. Since the issued involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, the following common order is passed. 2. Though notice was served on the fourth respondent Jayapal on 29.11.2011, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel which shows that he has no interest in prosecuting the matter. As the matter is listed for final disposal, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. 3. These writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 871 of 2010 and 75 of 2010 respectively wherein O.A. No. 75 of 2010 filed by the applicant Jayapal was allowed setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 20.01.2010 issued to him and O.A. No. 871 of 2010 filed by the writ petitioner claiming for promotion was dismissed. 4. The brief facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are as follows :- The petitioner while working as a Machinist (Highly Skilled) in the Heavy Vehicles Factory Training School, Avadi, participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the year 2008 for the post of Chargeman (Non Technical/Stores) [for short, 'NT/Stores'] and Non-Technical / Other than Stores [for short, 'NT/OTS'], which is a common one for both categories with two common papers, ie., General Knowledge and Labour and Factory Accounting and the third paper for NT/Stores category is Stores Procedure and Materials Management whereas for NT/OTS, the third paper is Office Procedure and Administration. It is stated that one Jayapal, fourth respondent in W.P. No. 26731 of 2011 and third respondent in W.P. No. 26732 of 2011, was appointed as Chargeman Gr. II NT/Stores with effect from 01.01.2009. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the mark statement, he sought information under the Right to Information Act for the answer scripts from OFIL, Avadi and on revaluation, it came to light that the fourth respondent was wrongly shown to have secured 35.25 marks in General Knowledge paper instead of 32.25 marks as a result of which, the aggregate in the subjects revised from 151.5 to 148.5 marks in NT/OTS whereas the marks obtained by the petitioner in Labour Accounting and Factory Accounting paper was wrongly shown as 52.75 instead of 65.25 marks. Also, in third paper for NT/Stores, ie., Stores Procedure and Material Management, his marks were revised from 54 to 55 marks as a result of which, his aggregate marks was revised from 141 to 154.5 for NT/Stores. It is further stated that due to re-valuation, his position was upgraded from 12th to 5th rank in the merit list for NT/Stores whereas the position of the fourth respondent descended from 9 to 10 and according to the petitioner, a revised merit list was also issued on 29.12.2009. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that though he made repeated representations to the respondents to promote him as Chargeman Gr. II (NT/Stores) with effect from 01.01.2009, the respondents, in turn, issued a show cause notice to the fourth respondent as to why he should not be reverted to the lower post since his position in the merit list has been revised to the 10th position. Challenging the said notice, the fourth respondent filed O.A. No. 75 of 2010 before the Tribunal. Since no action was taken on the representations made by the petitioner for his promotion based on the revised position in the merit list, he filed O.A. No. 871 of 2010. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the materials placed on record, allowed the Original Application filed by the fourth respondent challenging the show cause notice, following the earlier order passed in O.A. No. 774 of 2010 and dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking promotion. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with these two Writ Petitions. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as inter- position in the merit list for LDCE for the year 2008 for the post of Chargeman has been revised and the petitioner has come out successful and has been placed at Sl. No. 5, the same should have been given effect to. He further contended that the authorities as well as the Tribunal have failed to consider that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate. According to the learned counsel, the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner as per the revised merit list, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. He further contended that the authorities as well as the Tribunal have failed to consider that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate. According to the learned counsel, the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner as per the revised merit list, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Heavy Vehicles Factory, reiterating the very same contention raised in the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal, submitted that since there is no vacancy under LDCE quota for promotion to Chargeman, the fourth respondent has to be reverted to accommodate the petitioner for which reason he was also issued a show cause notice. But as the Tribunal has quashed the show cause notice at the instance of the fourth respondent, the petitioner could not be promoted as Chargeman (NT/Stores). 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10. From the materials, it is seen that as per FO Part-I No. 207 dated 21.7.2008, notification of vacancies in respect of Chargeman-NT/OTS was for 5 in which 4 vacancies for Unreserved and one for ST and for Chargeman (NT/Stores), the vacancies notified was 5 and all the vacancies are for Unreserved category. Since no ST candidate was available, the remaining 9 vacancies were filled from unreserved category. It is not in dispute that as per the initial merit list, the fourth respondent was promoted to the post of Chargeman (NT/Stores). 11. The fact remains that on the basis of the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, revaluation and re-totaling of the answer sheets was done. After completion of the exercise of re-valuation, a revised merit list was issued on 29.12.2009 as per which the petitioner, who was in 12th rank in the first instance, got 5th rank and the position of the fourth respondent was brought down from 9th to 10th. The revision of the fourth respondent to 10th position disentitles him the original promotion granted on the basis of the position of the petitioner in the erstwhile merit list. Instead of promoting the petitioner after reverting the fourth respondent, in view of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner was denied promotion. 12. The revision of the fourth respondent to 10th position disentitles him the original promotion granted on the basis of the position of the petitioner in the erstwhile merit list. Instead of promoting the petitioner after reverting the fourth respondent, in view of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner was denied promotion. 12. It is seen from the records that subsequent to the revised merit list, the fourth respondent was issued with show cause notice dated 20.01.2010 stating that he was placed at 10th position as per the revised merit list and as such, he has to be reverted back to the former post of Examiner in Industrial cadre. In the typed set of papers, we are able to see that the fourth respondent, by letter dated 22.01.2010, has sought time upto 28.01.2010 for submitting his representation. There can be no second opinion that the fourth respondent is bound to submit reply to the show cause notice. On the other hand, instead of submitting explanation, he has chosen to file the Original Application in O.A. No. 75 of 2010 on 25.01.2010 challenging the said show cause notice and such attitude of the fourth respondent cannot be appreciated. 13. Once the Department found that the petitioner was meritorious than the fourth respondent, the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the matter in not granting him promotion and given a direction to consider his case for promotion as per the revised merit list. More so, the Tribunal did not interfere with the appointment of the fourth respondent on the ground that he had already joined in the promoted post as per the original merit list. If the revised merit list is not given effect to, in our considered view, the entire exercise will become futile. The Tribunal should have borne in mind that the Original Application filed against the show cause notice dated 20.01.2010 cannot be maintained. The show cause notice was issued to the fourth respondent only with a view to give an opportunity to make his representation. As already pointed out, the fourth respondent, instead of submitting his explanation, has filed the Original Application and the Tribunal committed a mistake in allowing the Original Application. 14. The show cause notice was issued to the fourth respondent only with a view to give an opportunity to make his representation. As already pointed out, the fourth respondent, instead of submitting his explanation, has filed the Original Application and the Tribunal committed a mistake in allowing the Original Application. 14. In view of the fact that even as per the admission of the authorities that as per the revised merit list, the petitioner has to be promoted to the post of Chargeman Group (II) NT/Stores, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not right in quashing the show cause notice issued to the fourth respondent and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for promotion as per the merit list and as such, the same is to be interfered with. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside. Consequently, O.A. No. 75 of 2010 filed by Jayapal the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 26731 of 2011 and third respondent in W.P. No. 26731 of 2011 stands dismissed. The authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and grant promotion to him as Chargeman Group (II) NT/Stores with effect from 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits as per the revised merit list within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to cost.