JUDGMENT : 1. Since both the petitions are directed against the self same judgment of the ld. Central Administrative Tribunal dated 08.04.1999, hence are decided by the present order. 2. The original applicant Pappu S/o Deen Dayal filed Original Application before the ld. Tribunal u/Sec. 19 of the Act with the complaint that the process of selection initiated by the respondent (Railway Establishment) for the post of Safaiwala/Mess Boy, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.05.1997 inviting applications of the candidates who earlier worked as Sawaiwala on part-time basis or on urgent temporary basis or dependents of Safai Karamcharis or from person who had worked otherwise in the Railway premises/ coaches/trains as Safaiwala, in which the present petitioner also applied for the post of Sawaiwala and his application was forwarded through proper channel and he was interviewed on 29.07.1997. Although, the fact is that the process of selection commenced from 28.07.1997 and ended on 05.08.1997 and the result was declared on 06.08.1997 and in all 115 candidates were declared successful. 3. His contention before the ld. Tribunal was that the Selection Board was constituted of DMO, Western Railway, Kota; APO(T), Western Railway, Kota; and APO (Electrical), Western Railway, Kota and the selections were held by the Selection Board from 28.07.1997 to 05.08.1997 and the petitioner also appeared before the Board and the fact is that certain candidates who were initially not called for interview were interviewed subsequently by the Selection Committee, of which reference has been made and such of the candidates were found suitable & selected for appointment. 4. It is not disputed that the selections were held, in respect of which complaint was made but before any further action could be initiated, in giving appointment to the candidates who were recommended by the Committee, the matter came up for consideration before the ld. Tribunal and after the matter being heard, the ld. Tribunal arrived to the conclusion, under its order impugned that the names of the candidates who were not found eligible earlier but still called for interview and certain candidates who were not belonging to Sweeper Community were still selected and finally observed that to the extent the person who were impleaded as respondents, the impugned result (Annex.A1) was interfered with, although the rest of the selections must have been finalized since there was no dispute raised by the original applicant to that extent before the ld. Tribunal. Tribunal. 5. To the extent interference was made by the ld. Tribunal while admitting the writ petition, no interim protection was granted to the writ petitioners and as it reveals from the order dated 07.09.2000, this court made it clear that fresh selection shall now be undertaken by the Railway Establishment, pursuant to the directions of ld. Tribunal that will remain subject to the final out come of the writ petition. 6. Obviously, the selections must have been held, in compliance of order of the ld. Tribunal which is impugned in the instant proceedings. At the same time, this being a settled principles of law that mere selection does not confer any right and if the ld. Tribunal on the basis of the material which has come on record, recorded a finding that error has been committed in the decision making process adopted by the respondent holding selection for the post of Safaiwala which was initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 15.05.1997, there appears no manifest error for our interference. 7. At the same time, future selections must have been held in furtherance of order of the ld. Tribunal dated 08.04.1999 impugned in the instant proceedings, after such a long passage of time, there appears no reason for this court to now re-appreciate such future selections held in the last two decades. 8. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we do not find any manifest error being committed in the decision making process which may call for interference of this court. 9. Consequently, both the writ petitions being devoid of merit, accordingly stand dismissed.