JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioners-Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) [hereinafter to be referred as 'the SER'] being aggrieved of the order dated 25th August 2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) [for short 'CAT, Ranchi'] has filed the instant petition, which is at the admission stage, but with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on board for its final consideration. 2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chakradharpur Division vide its notification dated 26th June, 2011, invited the applications for filling up vacancies of JE (Electrical) against 25% Intermediate Apprentice Quota of Elec. (G), Department of Chakradharpur Division. These promotions were to be made within Group-C only from Technical Grade- I, II, III & IV for different categories. Circular No. Estt. Srl. No. 145/2003 dated 7th October, 2003 (for short ‘Circular of 2003) was followed for the purposes of preparation of the panel on the basis of the marks obtained in which all the four respondents (hereinafter to be referred as applicants) were declared qualified and sent for 52 weeks training. When they were undergoing training course, vide order dated 20th March, 2012, they were released from training and were directed to report at their headquarters, reason for the same was that the ADRM, after getting approval of DRM, had cancelled the order of their empanelment dated 19th March, 2012, on the ground that because of certain procedural lapses, aforesaid circular of 2003 was adhered to, whereas in fact Circular No. Estt. Srl. No. 60/2006 dated 18th April, 2006 (for short ‘Circular of 2006’) was to be followed for empanelment so far as marking is concerned. This gave the cause to the applicants to knock at the door of the CAT, Ranchi by filing OA 84/2012(R), which now stands allowed and that the order dated 19th March, 2012 cancelling the selection of applicants stands quashed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the impugned order. 4. At the very outset, Mr. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the impugned order. 4. At the very outset, Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners- the SER, has taken us to page-34 of Annexure-2 and states that but for applicant- J.K. Srivastava and other three have been able to make grade as per the marks obtained by in terms of the aforesaid Circular of 2006 and are empanelled also, whereas in place of applicant-J.K. Srivastava, one A.K. Pradhan, who has obtained more marks than him has been empanelled. He submits that in view of the new chart (Annexure-2) now available on record, perhaps three of the applicants, namely, Manas Ranjan Panigrahi, R.K. Shaw and Jiban Tirkey should have no grievance as they are again empanelled. He, however, fairly stated that no promotional order has since been released in their favour on account of pendency of the instant writ petition and he is also not aware as to whether the aforesaid three persons, now empanelled, have also completed their left over days of training as all the applicants earlier selected were called back before completion of the training period. According to Mr. Tewari, so far as applicant- J.K. Srivastava is concerned, after adhering to aforesaid Circular of 2006, he, in any case, cannot make the grade on account of obtaining less marks as compared to A.K. Pradhan. 5. Mrs. Pal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants, states that in view of statement made at the Bar by Mr. Tewari with regard to empanelment of aforesaid three persons, namely, Manas Ranjan Panigrahi, R.K. Shaw and Jiban Tirkey in terms of the marks now obtained by them on the strength of Circular of 2006 and the applicant- J.K. Srivastava could not make the grade, she would not raise any objection, if the panel now prepared excluding J.K. Srivastava is implemented at the earliest so that the empanelled applicants are promoted as Junior Engineer in Group-C at the earliest. 6. In view of the afore-stated facts, we dispose of the instant petition directing the petitioners to implement the panel (Annexure-2) already prepared, wherein Manas Ranjan Panigrahi, R.K. Shaw and Jiban Tirkey stand empanelled for the promotion of Junior Engineer in Group-C, within four weeks only from today, if the needful has not been done till date. 6. In view of the afore-stated facts, we dispose of the instant petition directing the petitioners to implement the panel (Annexure-2) already prepared, wherein Manas Ranjan Panigrahi, R.K. Shaw and Jiban Tirkey stand empanelled for the promotion of Junior Engineer in Group-C, within four weeks only from today, if the needful has not been done till date. If in case they have to be sent for completing their training for 52 weeks as they were called back 10 days before the completion of the training, that exercise shall also be done without any waste of time within the aforesaid period only. To make it more clear, entire exercise shall be complete within four weeks from today. 7. I.A. No. 6709 of 2014 also stands disposed of.