Judgment K.J. THAKER, J. 1. This is a petition by the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2-the petitioners, herein, challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Dated : 03.12.2004, rendered in O.A. No. 476 of 2002 as well as the order dated 11.04.2005, rendered in R. A. No. 21 of 2005 in O.A. in 476 of 2002 with M.A. No. 222 of 2005. 2. Heard. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners, he heavily relied on the circular issued by petitioner No.1, Dated : 10.12.1998. We are pained to state that respondent No.1 secured more marks than one of the persons, who has been appointed, i.e. namely Indrajeet R. Goswami-respondent No.3, herein. Ms. Trivedi, learned Advocate appears for respondent No.3, however, no reply has been filed on behalf of the said respondent for a period of more than eight years. The original application is of the year 2002 and the present petition is preferred, seeking to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal in original application as well as in review petition, which was summarily dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated 03.12.2004, at Para-3 observed as under; “3. The respondents in their reply have indicated that only two applications were received in reply to notification dated 22.12.2000. The applicant did not apply. Both were not fulfilling the conditions. A proposal was sent to head quareters to call for applications from skilled artisan staff with minimum five years service and age below 45 years at the time of selection. The head quarters drew attention to the GM(E). CCG’s letter of 3/2/87 forwarding Railway Board Circulars dated 21/1/76 and 23/11/76. The new notification was accordingly issued calling applications from skilled Artisan Gr.III and above having three years service and below 45 of age. It was a fresh selection and not a continuation of earlier selection. The vacancies were on account of temporary downgrading of posts due to scarcity of supervisory staff in STR group. The assessment was revised from 3 to 2 as one downgraded post was required to be filled up by promotion. The averments regarding applicability of para 215 to 219 with respect to assessment of vacancies is not relevant as the selection is against temporary downgraded post. The change in assessment of vacancies and eligibility criterion are legal and valid. Respondent No.3 was appointed as a Trainee Fitter (MW) Gr. The averments regarding applicability of para 215 to 219 with respect to assessment of vacancies is not relevant as the selection is against temporary downgraded post. The change in assessment of vacancies and eligibility criterion are legal and valid. Respondent No.3 was appointed as a Trainee Fitter (MW) Gr. II on compassionate grounds from 31/10/95 and was put on three years training. The trade test was delayed and he could be regularized on 28/1/99. The applicant was required to be regularized w.e.f. 31/10/98, he thus fulfills the conditions of three years service on 1/11/01 and therefore meets the eligibility criterion. The applicant has been promoted as Fitter (G) Grade-I from 27/1/2001 and hence the averments regarding his working for ten years is incorrect. The applicant has not given the source of his information that select committee had included his name in the panel. The applicant could not find place on the panel. The persons on the panel will be promoted only after completing the 18 months training and passing the test on completion. All the actions are proper...” 3. The Tribunal has, further, observed as under at Para-32 of the very same judgment and order; “32. It appears from both these notifications that all the posts have been reserved only for general candidates. That my perhaps be the reason why the applicant was bypassed, as no reasons have been assigned either in the DPC minutes or in the OA. The Government policy is very clear. If a person belonging to SC/ST obtains higher marks than a general caste candidate in a selection he is to be treated as belonging to general category. The Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal & J.C. Mallik’s case held that persons belonging to reserved category, who are appointed on the basis of merit should not be included in the quota of reservation. ...” 4. We are in complete agreement with the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal. The name of Shri. Darbarasingh ought to have been shown immediately after Shri. Rao, as admittedly he has obtained 76.1 marks, whereas, Shri. Indrajeet Goswami has obtained only 72.5 marks. The confidential report of Shri. Darbarasingh does not reveal, as to whether there was any adverse remarks against him, therein. The Tribunal, hence, rightly observed that no reasons have been assigned as to why a candidate with higher marks has not been selected, i.e. Shri. Darbarasingh. The confidential report of Shri. Darbarasingh does not reveal, as to whether there was any adverse remarks against him, therein. The Tribunal, hence, rightly observed that no reasons have been assigned as to why a candidate with higher marks has not been selected, i.e. Shri. Darbarasingh. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in passing the impugned orders and the petition requires to be dismissed and the same is DISMISSED. 5. Here, it is pertinent to note that by virtue of the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2005, the impugned orders remained inoperative. Under the circumstances, Respondent No.1, Shri. Darbarasingh will, now, be given the promotion and the consequential benefits from the due date. It is, however, clarified that neither any recovery will be made from Shri. Indrajeet Goswami-respondent No.3 nor will he be reverted back to his original post. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged.