Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. We cannot find favour with the contentions and grounds raised in this appeal for the reasons that we will presently state.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners had settled Annexures A8 and A9 seniority list of employees in the services of the Central Passport Organisation; and respondents 1 and 2 were shown senior to the other party respondents herein.

3. However, subsequently, Annexure A10 Draft Seniority List was published by the appellants, in which respondents 1 and 2 herein were shown to be junior to the other party respondents; and they challenged it by filing OA No.893/2019 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (“Tribunal” for short).

4. The appellants contended that the revision of seniority, as attempted through Annexure A10, unsettling that finalised earlier through Annexures A8 and A9 was impermissible and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others [(2020) 5 SCC 689]; and sought that the same, as also Annexure A16 final seniority list, be quashed.

5. The learned Tribunal accepted the plea of the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 herein and allowed the OA; against which, the appellants are in appeal.

6. Sri.Sajith Kumar V. – learned Senior Panel Counsel for the appellants, argued that Annexure A10 Draft Seniority List was published only on account of the declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an earlier judgment, namely Union of India v. N.R.Parmar [(2012) 13 SCC 340]. He contended that, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law in the manner as done therein, it was incumbent upon his clients to have formulated a proper policy, which they did through Ext.P6; and consequently, being enjoined to revise the seniority, as then done through Annexure A10. He added that, Annexure A16 is only a corollary progression to the stage of final seniority list; and hence that the learned Tribunal ought not to have quashed it.

7. Smt.Kala T.Gopi – learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, however, argued that N.R.Parmar (supra) was overruled by K.Meghachandra Singh (supra), with a specific mandate that any seniority fixed as per the ratio of the former shall not be disturbed. She pointed out that, Annexure A10 was not a final seniority list, but was only a draft one, which was dated 07.08.2019; however, admitted that this was before K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) had been delivered. She asserted that, however, when it came to Annexure A16, it is dated 28.11.2019, which is after K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) had been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and consequently that the appellants could not have finalised the said list thereafter. She contended that, in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has acted without error.

8. We find great force in the afore submissions of Smt.Kala T.Gopi.

9. Undoubtedly, the appellants were enjoined to act as per N.R.Parmar (supra) and to revise seniority in terms of its declarations. They cannot be faulted for having issued Annexure A10, which is a Draft Seniority List, because N.R.Parmar (supra) stood the field at that time, it being dated 07.08.2019. However, when Annexure A16 Final Seniority List had been published, N.R.Parmar (supra) stood overruled, through K.Meghachandra Singh (supra).

10. The acme question, therefore, is whether the appellants ought to have finalised Annexure A16 seniority list based on Annexure A10 Draft Seniority List, particularly because the revision of seniority as per N.R.Parmar (supra) had not been effected until then.

11. Undoubtedly, K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) postulates unreservedly that seniority, if revised in terms of N.R.Parmar (supra) ought not to be disturbed. However, since Annexure A-10 was only a draft seniority list, there is no question of the seniority of the employees being revised at that time. This is manifest since, it luculently says that the same is subject to any judgment or order of any court of law. K.Meghachandra Singh (supra) was delivered on 19.11.2019; and since, even on that day, seniority had not been revised, the appellants ought not to have taken any further steps in such regard because, as seen above, N.R.Parmar (supra) stood overruled from that day.

12. However, the appellants chose to finalise Annexure A16 on 28.11.2019 and then disturbed the seniority as fixed by Annexures A8 and A9 relying on N.R.Parmar (supra), which stood reversed, as on that day.

13. Ineluctably, therefore, the Tribunal has acted without error; and we obtain no cause to interfere.

                  This Original Petition is, consequently, dismissed.