observed by the Tribunal that, mere filing of representations was not enough and the petitioner ought to have challenged the Government Resolution dated 30.09.2006 at the earliest. The Tribunal has further rightly observed that, the seniority list in which the petitioner is seeking inclusion of his name, is in respect of the employees holding the post of Group Instructor, whereas the petitioner is the Craft Instructor. The Tribunal has further correctly observed that, in absence of any challenge by the petitioner to the Government Resolution dated 30.09.2006, prayers made by the petitioner for including his name in the seniority list of Group Instructor was not liable to be considered. It is further observed by the Tribunal that, it was not the petitioner alone who was posted as Craft Instructor at the relevant time from the category of Group Instructor. The Tribunal has observed that, the Government had taken stock of various posts in the Government Industrial Training Institutes as per the recommendations of the High Power Committee and in view of the said exercise the decision was taken to convert the post of Group Instructor (COPA) into Craft Instructor. As such, the allegation made by the petitioner that he has been singled out appears to be incorrect. So far as the
