ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) 1. But for the fact that the party-in-persons are appearing in these two petitions, the Court would have thrown these petitions out without getting itself detained for so long. Only with a view to see that the party-in-persons do not feel that the Courts are meant for hearing the arguments made by learned advocates, the Court granted sufficient indulgence to both the party-in-persons appearing in these two petitions as petitioners. The matters were heard at length, but the Court is not able to give any relief, much less the relief sought for by the petitioners in these two petitions. In fact, if the Court has to put in nutshell the relief sought for by the party-in-persons, it is to the effect that, ‘the judgment and order rendered by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71 dated 26.4.2000 cannot be read to mean that the Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that the judgment and order of the Hon’ble the Apex Court confirming the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court in SCA No.2739 of 1981 and SCA No.3652 of 1981 dated 20.2.1985 is not the correct law’. The Hon’ble the Apex Court would not like to reverse the entire exercise undertaken pursuant to that decision and made it clear that whosoever is promoted pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court (confirming the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court) will not be reverted and the Department will not be required to operate the seniority list which is prepared on the basis of the date of passing the departmental examination and will follow the seniority list prepared on the basis of the date of recruitment. 2. There are more than one point for throwing out these petitions. The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad by filing O.A.Nos.424 of 2009 and 440 of 2009, i.e. after the date of retirement of both the party-in-persons. 2. There are more than one point for throwing out these petitions. The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad by filing O.A.Nos.424 of 2009 and 440 of 2009, i.e. after the date of retirement of both the party-in-persons. Though juniors were promoted somewhere in the year 1998, as is contended by the party-in-persons, they were waiting because, as per their say, due to an oral assurance given by the Department to the effect that they will be getting their promotion in due time; that though the party-in-persons passed departmental examination in the year 1985, they did not claim promotion for all these years. 2.1 Not only that only because of the indulgence granted to the petitioners/party-in-persons, the Court has not dismissed these petitions even on technical grounds. 2.2 It is a matter of record that earlier seniority list was prepared and maintained on the basis of the date of recruitment of JTO. It was only after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 20.2.1985, confirmed by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, seniority list was prepared on the basis of the date of passing of the departmental examination. Now this particular question came up for consideration of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association (supra) wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court has said that: “.......We have considered this question in great detail and we have held that the question of seniority in the feeder cadre of Junior Engineers, when persons belonging to the same recruitment year are recommended, has to be decided in accordance with paragraph (iii) of the Memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966 and in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules read with Appendix attached thereto for promotion to the posts in Group B service, separate list has to be made in respect of each recruitment year. We have also held that after promulgation of the recruitment rules, the administrative instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual, will have no force. We have also indicated that the promotions already effected pursuant to the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Union of India will not be altered in any manner. We have also indicated that the promotions already effected pursuant to the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Union of India will not be altered in any manner. This being the position and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favour of Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having received the benefit of the said Judgment and having been promoted, could not have been reverted because of some latter Judgments and directions given either by the Tribunals or by this Court. On the admitted position that the applicant Parmanand was reverted by order dated 4.2.93 because of certain directions given by some other Tribunals, deciding the principle of re-fixation of seniority and it is on that basis an order of reversion was passed, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order of reversion is untenable and unjustified on the grounds on which the said reversion has been passed, and as such cannot be sustained in law. We make it clear that the seniority of Parmanand in the cadre of Junior Engineer, fixed on the basis of the directions of Allahabad High Court, after dismissal of the SLP against the same by this Court is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is erroneous and we quash the same and allow the civil appeals filed by the said Parmanand Lal. After closure of the arguments, an application has been filed on 18th of April, 2000 by Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum, New Delhi through its President, seeking intervention in the matter, has prayed for an opportunity of being heard. It is not possible to re-hear the matter again. The prayer accordingly stands rejected. All these appeals and applications are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied) 3. In the case on hand, the petitioners were in service with the Department and they passed the departmental examination in the year 1985. Even after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, the petitioners did not do anything though their juniors were promoted, to their knowledge. In the case on hand, the petitioners were in service with the Department and they passed the departmental examination in the year 1985. Even after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, the petitioners did not do anything though their juniors were promoted, to their knowledge. The only explanation is that they waited on an oral assurance given by somebody in the Department. It is a settled law that such assurance given by somebody on behalf of the Department cannot be the basis for entertaining their petitions. Therefore, the petitioners have to thank themselves for having relied upon an oral assurance given by somebody on behalf of the Department. Not only that, though the seniority list was revised in the year 1992 and it was communicated to all the concerned employees, the petitioners did not approach any Court/Tribunal/ Judicial Forum for any relief. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad only in the year 2009 by filing OA No.424 of 2009 and O.A.No.440 of 2009 for the first time incidentally after their retirement. 4 We have carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in not only in OA Nos.424 of 2009 and 440 of 2009 but also the order passed in MA Nos.554 of 2009 and 544 of 2009. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 4.1 As an attempt, out of frustration, the petitioners/party-in-persons did submit that even Union personnel had advised them not to go to the Court and wait for the fruits which will come automatically (by way of promotion). The same analogy will apply qua the advise given by the union also. 5. In the result, the petitions fail. They are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.