Judgment : V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and directions for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and order dated 27.2.2004 and 22.11.2004 passed in O.A.No.367 of 2003 and Misc.Petition No.607 of 2004 in O.A.No.367 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 3. Sometime in September, 1999 respondent no.2 Bhabha Atomic Research Centre sent a requisition to the local Employment Exchange seeking the list of eligible persons for filling up the posts of drivers and also issued a circular to its various offices throughout India for filling up the posts from departmental candidates. Various criterias were prescribed for the said posts. Accordingly, the respondents submitted their applications for the posts of drivers. The petitioners were also asked to fill in the other forms. It is the case of the petitioners that reports were received by the management that some corrupt practices had taken place during the process and several lapses were also noticed in the recruitment procedure which was followed while filling up the said posts. A decision was therefore taken to scrap the entire select panel. Thereafter, in February 2001 recruitment norms for the posts of drivers were revised with the approval of respondent no.2, Director of BARC. Thereafter, fresh advertisements were issued inviting applications for the posts of drivers. Several eligible candidates who had applied were interviewed and a list of successful candidates was prepared. Thereafter, in February, 2002 the successful candidates from the said list were recruited. 4. In June, 2002 a representation was made by the respondents requesting the authorities to offer them appointments for the posts of drivers. Since the said representation was not decided the four respondents filed O.A.No.367 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.A. and disposed of the said O.A. by its Judgment and order dated 27.2.2004. In June, 2002 a representation was made by the respondents requesting the authorities to offer them appointments for the posts of drivers. Since the said representation was not decided the four respondents filed O.A.No.367 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.A. and disposed of the said O.A. by its Judgment and order dated 27.2.2004. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it felt that the appointment could not be denied to the applicants therein since they crossed the maximum age of 30 years in view of the new recruitment rules. A direction was given therefore to adjust the applicants as against future vacancies of drivers. A direction was also given by the Tribunal that before appointing the said applicants, the respondents were at liberty to examine whether they fulfill all the eligibility criteria according to the rules which existed at the time of selection. It was contended by the respondents that in view of the new rules of recruitment, it was necessary to have driving licence which was one of the eligibility criteria. The Tribunal therefore directed that if the respondents would not attain the said qualification within a period of two years their services should be confirmed only after they acquired the said qualification. A direction was also given that the said respondents would be given seniority from the date of their appointments against future vacancies and those existing at present. Permission was also granted to the petitioners to take trade test again. It was also clarified that the respondents herein were supposed to fullfil all other requirements. A direction was also given to complete the said process within a period of six months. 5. Thereafter, an application was filed being Misc.Petition No.607 of 2004 seeking clarification and it was submitted that some of the directions given by the tribunal were contradictory with each other. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal therefore, partly modified its earlier order after taking into consideration the subsequent events and directed that since all the vacancies advertised had been filled up, the respondents should be straight away appointed subject to character verification etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the said order. 6. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal therefore, partly modified its earlier order after taking into consideration the subsequent events and directed that since all the vacancies advertised had been filled up, the respondents should be straight away appointed subject to character verification etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the said order. 6. It was firstly submitted that earlier selection list was scrapped since it was found that certain corrupt practices had taken place in the said process of selection. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioners were justified in scrapping the said list. It was further submitted that this fact was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 7. It is not possible to accept the said submission. We find that in the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all these facts and came to the conclusion that the main issue involved in the case was whether the petitioners were justified in cancellation of the entire panel. The Tribunal thereafter took into consideration various points which were urged by the petitioners herein and the reasons given by the petitioners for cancellation of the panel. Thereafter after taking into consideration the instructions of DOP & T dated 18.5.1998 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said order dated 18.5.1998 did not help the respondents in their action to cancel the entire panel which was on the basis of regular RRrs prevalent at that time. Similarly, on the question of parity also the Tribunal observed after taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court that the parity has to be decided on the basis of status and responsibilities of the employees and it cannot be decided merely on the basis of pay-scales alone. The Tribunal therefore, was of the opinion that amendment to the RRs by the petitioners herein could not be a ground for cancellation of the existing panel. The Tribunal therefore, was of the opinion that amendment to the RRs by the petitioners herein could not be a ground for cancellation of the existing panel. The Tribunal therefore, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that it was not appropriate to deny the appointments to the applicants and therefore was pleased to allow the O.A. Initial directions which were given to appoint the respondents as and when future vacancies became available were modified when it was pointed out that as there were as many as 11 vacancies, the respondents herein have been appointed in the said vacant posts. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners therefore, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons after taking into consideration various provisions of law and factual aspects and which were prevalent at that time and after taking into consideration the said facts, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioners were not justified in not appointing the respondents herein. 8. It is a well settled principle of law that this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227of the Constitution of India is not expected to exercise the said jurisdiction as an Appellate Court. This Court, therefore cannot substitute the view taken by the Tribunal if the said view is a possible view. In our view, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or is against the settled principles of law. We are therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the tribunal in the O.A. or in the Review application. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. 9. We are informed at the bar that there are 12 vacancies available. We therefore, direct the petitioners to fill up the posts in the said vacancies as per directions given by the Tribunal. The said process should be completed within a period of four weeks from today.