ORDER 1. Challenging the order dated 28.07.2010 passed in Original Application No. 640 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the petitioner-Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has preferred the present Writ Petition. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 2. The applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal, seeking to declare the inclusion of the names of 119 candidates, who had already been promoted as Section Officers on the basis of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short 'LDCE') in the list of successful candidates of LDCE 2004, as arbitrary and illegal and set aside the results of LDCE 2004 to the extent it includes the names of 119 candidates, who had already been promoted as Section Officers on the basis of LDCE 2003; to direct UPSC to recommend 119 fresh next available candidates by reducing the cut-off on the basis of the LDCE, 2004; direct the respondents to give him all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: "400 vacancies were notified in the grade of Section Officer (SO) of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) in LDCE for the year 2004 and the eligibility for the said post is seniority and passing LDCE. UPSC published only 390 results in the written part of the examination and finally published only 354 candidates for becoming SOs. Subsequently, vide a supplementary list, 36 candidates were declared qualified. A promotion order dated 6.6.2006 was issued containing names of only 201 Assistants. Thereafter, 29 candidates were promoted to SOs vide order dated 7.12.2006. Therefore, total successful candidates through LDCE 2004 are only 230 instead of 400 vacancies existing, and thus, 170 vacancies of SO are still lying vacant. The inclusion of names of 119 candidates, who had already been qualified in LDCE 2003 and had already been appointed in the SOs Grade, in the list of LDCE 2004, is arbitrary. The said action of the respondents is not only prejudicial to the rights of the applicant but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The said action of the respondents is not only prejudicial to the rights of the applicant but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the applicant that the respondents are denying the eligible candidates for further promotion by accommodating the already selected candidates and the selection of LDCE 2004 conducted in an arbitrary manner. The respondents have not specified the minimum qualifying marks either in the notification or in the reply filed by the respondents. The respondents without specifying the minimum qualifying marks prior to the conducting of the written examination of LDCE and stating that the applicant had not qualified in the written part, is not in accordance with the law. Hence, the Original Application." 4. The respondents resisted the application by filing counter stating that on 3.7.2004, the Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi (DoPT) published the Rules for holding the combined Section Officers/Stenos LDCE by the UPSC on 26.12.2004. The result of written part of the examination was declared on 7.11.2005 after assessing the Annual Confidential Reports of the 390 candidates in Category-I who were qualified in the written part of the examination and final result was declared on 24.3.2006 recommending 354 candidates. UPSC makes all efforts to declare the result of a particular examination before holding the examination for the next year. But, the concerned cadre controlling authorities have taken time to finalize vacancies and in that process, result of a particular examination gets delayed and was declared after holding the examination for the next year. Some of the qualified candidates in LDCE 2003 also appeared and qualified in the successive examinations without waiting for their result in previous examination. Due to the delay in finalization of vacancies by DoPT for Category-I, UPSC could declare the final result of Section Officers/Stenos LDCE 2004 on 24.3.2006 only. There were 148 such repeated candidates in Category-I, who stood qualified both in LDCE 2003 and 2004 and were appointed on the basis of 2003 LDCE examination. Some of the candidates qualified in written part, but finally unsuccessful candidates, approached Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 582 of 2005. There were 148 such repeated candidates in Category-I, who stood qualified both in LDCE 2003 and 2004 and were appointed on the basis of 2003 LDCE examination. Some of the candidates qualified in written part, but finally unsuccessful candidates, approached Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 582 of 2005. The CAT observed that such candidates had a right to promotion on the ground that the result of LDCE 2004 contained names of 148 candidates, who were already promoted to Section Officers Grade of CSS on the basis of LDCE 2003. The order of the CAT was challenged before the Delhi High Court, which in turn, upheld the order and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, DoPT approached UPSC for release of result of 148 fresh candidates. As there were only 36 written qualified candidates in Category-I. UPSC released supplementary result of only 36 available written qualified candidates on 20.11.2006. As the applicant did not qualify in the written examination, he could not be included in the supplementary result published on 20.11.2006. UPSC decided the cut off marks for qualifying in the said examination and the same was uniformly applied to all the candidates. Hence, the action of the authorities is legal and valid. 5. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel on either side and upon perusing the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the respondents in including the names of 119 candidates, who had already been promoted as Section Officers, on the basis of the LDCE 2003 in the list of successful candidates of LDCE 2004, as arbitrary and illegal and directed the respondents to recommend 119 next available candidates afresh by reducing the cut off marks on the basis of LDCE 2004. It is further directed that if the applicant is one of the eligible candidates after reducing the cut off marks, his case may be considered along with others for promotion to the post of Section Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner-UPSC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that fixation of cut off marks was done by the UPSC considering the facts and circumstances of each stage of the selection process. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner-UPSC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that fixation of cut off marks was done by the UPSC considering the facts and circumstances of each stage of the selection process. He further submits that 390 candidates were qualified in the written part of examination and only 354 candidates were recommended for promotion after evaluation of the Annual Confidential Reports. He also submits that supplementary list of all the remaining written examination qualified candidates was issued and all the 390 candidates were recommended for promotion and as such, no qualified candidates were left for recommendation by the Commission; that the Tribunal granted direction in favour of 119 candidates, who were not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal, and if any order is passed, it will affect the promotion of 119 candidates; hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant would submit that 119 candidates, who were qualified in LDCE 2003, were already appointed in the SOs Grade and therefore, inclusion of the names of these 119 candidates in the list of qualified candidates of LDCE 2004 is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the UPSC fixed the cutoff mark as 190, 185, 143, 143 and 143 in LDCE 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008 respectively with a ratio of 1 : 1.13 in LDCE 2004, 1 : 2.5 in LDCE 2005, which went up to 1 : 5.76 in subsequent years. He further submits that if the names of these 119 candidates are deleted from the list of LDCE 2004 then UPSC has to necessarily estimate the number of candidates to be selected and precisely for the wrong committed by the UPSC, the Tribunal has passed the order impugned, which needs no interference. 8. It is not in dispute that 119 candidates, who were qualified in the LDCE 2003, were already appointed in the SOs Grade. However, UPSC declared the results of LDCE 2004 by including the names of the said 119 candidates. The ratio (of number of reported vacancies to the number of candidates declared qualified in written examination) for LDCE 2004 is 1 : 1.13 and for the year 2005 is 1 : 2.5. However, UPSC declared the results of LDCE 2004 by including the names of the said 119 candidates. The ratio (of number of reported vacancies to the number of candidates declared qualified in written examination) for LDCE 2004 is 1 : 1.13 and for the year 2005 is 1 : 2.5. Names of the 119 candidates, who were already promoted on the basis of LDCE 2003, ought to have been deleted by the UPSC from the list of successful candidates in LDCE 2004 examination. Then necessarily UPSC has to reduce the cut off marks depending upon the number of vacancies and number of candidates. So, precisely, for that reason, the Tribunal had rightly observed that cut off marks have to be fixed by the UPSC prior to conducting the examination. The fact that fixation of cut off marks of 190 in LDCE 2004 by the UPSC has not been denied and disputed. Fixation of 190 marks as cut off marks is by including the 119 candidates successful in the LDCE 2003 examination. UPSC has wrongly included the names of 119 candidates, who were successful in LDCE 2003, in LDCE 2004. Had the names of these 119 candidates been deleted from the list of LDCE 2004, certainly some other candidates would have been successful in the written examination. Even though the applicant has not challenged the minimum cut off marks in the written examination, still, the ratio and qualifying mark ought to have been fixed basing upon the total vacancies and the persons appeared for examination duly deleting the names of 119 candidates, who have been wrongly included in LDCE 2004, which resulted in denying the benefits to some other eligible candidates, who appeared in the written examination of LDCE 2004. It is the responsibility of the UPSC to correct the said mistake. 9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others, 2007 (8) SCJ 510: (2007) 8 SCC 100 , wherein it was held that cut off marks were fixed in respect of the number of candidates and vacancies and the competent authority has power to fix the cut off marks and has power not to lower the cut off marks. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the above decision. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the above decision. But, in this case, admittedly no cut off marks were fixed by the UPSC during the selection process depending upon the number of vacancies, and the candidates, who secured 190 and above were called for the further process of selection for evaluating the Annual Confidential Reports. Therefore, there cannot be any cut off mark in this case. Hence, the above decision has no application to the case on hand. 10. Coming to the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice, since 119 candidates were already promoted basing on LDCE 2003, the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as LDCE 2004 will not have any impact or effect on the service conditions of the said candidates and they need not be impleaded as respondents and therefore the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed the petitioner herein and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. None of the findings of the Tribunal is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Petition dismissed.