have to determine as to whether the individual cases, in which promotions have been granted, are decided in accordance with the Department of Personnel and Training - Office Memorandum and further, the action of the Mumbai Port Trust would stand on the touchstone of the judgment in the case of M.Nagraj (supra). Then, it will have to decide whether M.Nagraj (supra) and the dictum therein stands superseded or is still binding on it and consequently, even the Division Bench judgment of this court would bind it despite all assertions of the petitioner to the contrary. In other words, merely because a policy decision is taken that no promotion can be granted to the S.C., S.T. OBC, except those made in accordance with the Office Memorandum of 30th January, 1997 and 2nd July, 1997, is not a issue to be seen and determined in isolation. One would have to read the communication as a whole. If the communication is read as a whole and in its entirety, it only intends to give effect to a binding judgment of this court. That the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court apart, the binding Division Bench judgment has to be given effect to particularly when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stayed its operation and implementation. That is the response expected from the Mumbai Port Trust. Once that is the factual position, then, the understanding of the Mumbai Port Trust, with regard to the binding nature of the
