JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. The instant batch of writ petitions has been filed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences through Controller of Examinations, New Delhi and the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur being aggrieved of the common order dated 04.10.2021 and orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur whereby, the Original Applications preferred by the respondents herein were accepted and the petitioners herein were directed to complete the process of posting the selected candidates in pursuance of the notification No.78/2018 dated 27.09.2018 purely on the basis of the preference given by such candidates on overall merit secured by them in the examination in their respective category. 2. As the writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law, they have been heard and are being decided together by this order. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these writ petitions are noted hereinbelow:- 4. The petitioner No.1 All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS, Delhi) conducted a common examination for direct recruitment to Group ‘D’ posts of Nursing Officer/Staff Nurse Grade-II vide notification No.78/2018 dated 27.09.2018 for AIIMS institutions countrywide. The respondents (applicants before the Tribunal) applied for these posts in the OBC category and as per the choice option given in the recruitment notification, they ticked Jodhpur as first preference for posting. The result of the selection examination was declared on 20.02.2020. As per the prevailing procedure and Government policies, the selected candidates were to be provided posting as per merit in the respective category. 5. It is an admitted position that the respondents, who belong to the OBC Category, were considered against the Unreserved/ General Category seats in the matter of providing place of posting and were allotted different AIIMS contrary to their first preference. The respondents herein ventilated their grievances by filing Original Applications before the Tribunal contending that several other candidates, who stood much below in rank as compared to the applicants, were accommodated/allotted seats at AIIMS Jodhpur in an arbitrary manner by ignoring the merit and hence, a prayer was made to direct the petitioners herein to allot/accommodate the respondents herein at the AIIMS Jodhpur in accordance with their merit and by adhering to the lawful procedure, these applications were allowed by a common order dated 4.10.2021 which is assailed in this bunch of appeals. 6. 6. Learned counsel Shri Kawadia representing the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal was absolutely unjustified and acted without jurisdiction while accepting the Original Applications filed by the respondents. The persons likely to be adversely affected by outcome of the Original Applications (those who have been given posting at the AIIMS Jodhpur even though they stood lower in rank as compared to the applicant respondents), were not impleaded as party respondents in the Original Applications. He further urged that only short reply with preliminary objections was filed before the Tribunal and detailed reply was not filed by the petitioners herein and hence, they have been seriously prejudiced on account of not being provided appropriate opportunity to contest the original applications. He thus implored this Court to accept these writ petitions, set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of filing detailed reply to the petitioners herein and by impleading the likely to be affected persons as party respondents therein. 7. He urged that the result was declared way back on 20.02.2020 and the candidates, who would be dislodged by the relief granted by the Tribunal to the respondents herein, have been severely prejudiced on account of the impugned judgment and hence also, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Shri Kawadia further submitted that since the examination was conducted by the AIIMS Delhi, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Original Applications and therefore too, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. However, upon a pertinent query being put to Shri Kawadia, he unhesitatingly admitted that as per the recruitment notification, the place of posting/allotment of AIIMS was to be decided on the basis of the merit of the candidate concerned in the respective category and that the concept of reservation was not to be applied in this exercise. He also was not in a position to dispute the position that the common recruitment examination was conducted by the AIIMS Delhi for selection and providing nursing staff to AIIMS institutions across the country. 9. Learned counsel representing the respondents herein vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Kawadia. He also was not in a position to dispute the position that the common recruitment examination was conducted by the AIIMS Delhi for selection and providing nursing staff to AIIMS institutions across the country. 9. Learned counsel representing the respondents herein vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Kawadia. They urged that it is not in dispute that as per terms and conditions of the recruitment notification and the prevailing regulations and guidelines, posting of the successful candidates was required to be made by strictly adhering to the preferences ticked by the candidates as per their position in merit. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the respondents, who are all candidates of OBC Category, secured more marks and stood higher in merit as compared to other OBC candidates who have been given posting at AIIMS Jodhpur. They urged that the petitioners have flouted the mandatory terms of recruitment notification inasmuch as, while allotting the posting places, they acted in a gross illegal arbitrary manner and moved the respondents into the Unreserved Category by applying social reservation in the matter of providing posting whereas, it was only limited to the process of selection and cannot govern the place of posting which is to be decided strictly on merit of the candidates in their own category. They pointed out that as per the result notification dated 20.02.2020, the seats were bifurcated categorywise and hence, the postings had to be provided as per the merit position of the successful candidates in their respective category. Learned counsel representing the respondents drew the Court’s attention to the judgment dated 11.02.2021 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.571/2020 (Ankit Tada and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby, the Original Application of those candidates, who are at par with the respondents herein, was accepted in the following terms:- “13. We make it clear that the allocation of vacancies to different categories in different hospitals were not part of the selection process at all. At the cost of repetition, we mention that reservation was never treated as a factor for posting at different hospitals. The respondents are not entitled to introduce the same at the stage of posting. In the counter affidavit also, extensive exercise is undertaken to justify the postings on the basis of reservation. At the cost of repetition, we mention that reservation was never treated as a factor for posting at different hospitals. The respondents are not entitled to introduce the same at the stage of posting. In the counter affidavit also, extensive exercise is undertaken to justify the postings on the basis of reservation. Once the respondents did not mention in the advertisement that the posting would be on the basis of reservation, they cannot be permitted to introduce the same at a later stage. They fall back upon the general principal of allocation under the policy evolved by the Government. 14. There would have been occasion for implementation of reservation at the stage of allocation also had it been a case where each hospital constituted a different service and the applicants were required to choose the service. In such an event, the pattern of selection would have been different. In case, their merit and the option did not enable them to get a vacancy in a particular service, in the unreserved category, they would have switched over to reserved category. Fortunately enough, there is no two tier selection process. The social status becomes relevant only in the context of selection to the post and as such. It is not at all in the context of posting at various places. 15. In view of the discussion undertaken above, we allow the OAs and set aside the impugned order in so far it did not accommodate the applicants at the places of their choice depending upon their overall merit, independent of their social status. The respondents shall complete the exercise and post the selected candidates, in pursuance of the notification dated 23.01.2020 purely on the basis of (a)choice of the candidates and (b) merit obtained by them in the examination, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. To be more cautious in this behalf, we direct that social status of a candidate or the factor of reservation shall not be taken into account, in the context of posting. The preference mentioned in the application form shall be treated as final and without any subsequent alteration. We also leave it open to the respondents to confine the exercise, only to the applicants herein, to avoid further complications. The relief is confined to the applicants alone. The preference mentioned in the application form shall be treated as final and without any subsequent alteration. We also leave it open to the respondents to confine the exercise, only to the applicants herein, to avoid further complications. The relief is confined to the applicants alone. The entire exercise shall in no way, disturb the selection of any candidate.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the controversy involved in the matters at hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and hence, the Tribunal’s order requires no interference whatsoever by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 11. Shri Deelip Kawadia, counsel representing the petitioners, candidly conceded that on legal principles and factual matrix, the controversy involved in these writ petitions, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. However, his fervent contention was that in the matters before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the candidates likely to be adversely affected were impleaded as parties. His further contention was that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi made it very clear that the relief was being confined to the applicants alone. Thus, as per Shri Kawadia, the judgment in the case of Ankit Tada (supra), does not have any precedential value as it is a “Judgment in persona” as opposed to a “Judgment in rem”. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record as well as the impugned order. We have also carefully perused the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Ankit Tada (supra). 13. We are duly satisfied that as per the recruitment notification, social reservation was to be applied only at the stage of making selection and not at the time of posting. The petitioners however acted in a totally illegal manner and while providing place of posting moved the respondents who are OBC candidates into the unreserved category by applying vertical reservation. It was very clearly stipulated in the recruitment notification dated 27.09.2018 as well as in the result notification dated 20.02.2020, that posting would be provided by accepting the preference given by the candidates on the basis of category-wise position in merit. 14. It was very clearly stipulated in the recruitment notification dated 27.09.2018 as well as in the result notification dated 20.02.2020, that posting would be provided by accepting the preference given by the candidates on the basis of category-wise position in merit. 14. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, examined identical controversy arising from the very same recruitment and held that allocation of vacancies to different categories in different hospitals, was not a part of the selection process. Reservation was never treated as a factor for posting at different hospitals. The respondents were not entitled to introduce the same at the stage of posting. The endeavour of the employer to introduce the concept of reservation at the stage of posting was repelled and it was held that as the advertisement did not provide that the posting would be on the basis of reservation, it could not be permitted to be introduced at a later stage. The allocation would be governed strictly by the policy evolved by the Government. 15. In reference to the above findings of the Tribunal, we made an enquiry from Shri Kawadia whether the services of the employees in various AIIMS across the country are inter-se transferable. He frankly conceded that it is not impermissible to transfer an employee from one AIIMS to another though generally, such transfers are not made. Apparently thus, the exercise of providing posting to the candidate could not have been made by ignoring the choice of the candidates with reference to the merit obtained by them in the examination. By ignoring the merit of the candidates while giving them posting, the respondents have acted in an absolutely unconstitutional, high-handed and arbitrary manner and have flouted the government policies, the terms and conditions applicable to the recruitment process. The argument advanced by Shri Kawadia that the affected candidates who will be prejudiced by the order of the Tribunal are required to be heard, does not hold water because the recruitment notification itself clearly stipulated that postings would be made on the basis of merit. As merit has been ignored, apparently, the persons, who stand lower in merit, can neither claim a right of hearing nor can they claim to be prejudiced by allocation of the appropriate AIIMS in terms of their own merit position. As merit has been ignored, apparently, the persons, who stand lower in merit, can neither claim a right of hearing nor can they claim to be prejudiced by allocation of the appropriate AIIMS in terms of their own merit position. The observation made in para 16 of Ankit Tada’s case that the relief was being confined to those applicants alone, would not defeat the claim of the respondent candidates because the said observation would have to be considered keeping in view the fact that there may be persons who might be satisfied with the posting given to them and thus, an order ‘in rem’ would disturb the posting position of such persons also. In the case of Ankit Tada (supra), the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, as a matter of fact, did not confine the operation of the Judgment but only made an observation that the respondents (the petitioners therein) were at liberty to confine the exercise of postings to the applicants who had approached the Tribunal. This observation can, in no manner, be construed as foreclosing the rights of the meritorious candidates who are entitled to similar relief. In any event, the respondent applicants bonafide raised their grievances by filing the Original Applications before the Tribunal well in time. They are entitled to the relief claimed for, on equity as well as on merit and hence, the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in extending the same vide the impugned Judgment. 16. The argument of Shri Kawadia that CAT Jodhpur Bench did not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis is also without merit because the AIIMS Delhi just held the consolidated exam for countrywide selection. The respondents were successful in the exam and stood higher in merit and as a consequence, sought posting at AIIMS Jodhpur which was denied to them in a totally illegal manner. Thus, the respondents definitely had the right to approach the CAT Jodhpur Bench because they sought the relief of being posted at AIIMS Jodhpur and thus, the cause of action accrued to them at Jodhpur. 17. After thorough discussion of the material available on record, we are of the firm view that the impugned Judgment dated 04.10.2021 and orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference. 18. 17. After thorough discussion of the material available on record, we are of the firm view that the impugned Judgment dated 04.10.2021 and orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference. 18. As a consequence, these writ petitions are rejected as being devoid of merit. 19. A copy of this order be placed in each file.