relief granted to the petitioner vide judgment dated 19.04.1994 in O.A.No.5880 of 1992 and batch. The principle followed by the Tribunal in the said judgment, as laid down in the judgment dated 15.04.1994 in O.A.No.5800 of 1992 and batch, is that, when Sub-Inspectors promoted on out of seniority basis are required to be reverted, reverse seniority needs to be followed, which means that the principle of ‘ last come first go ’ must be followed. Both respondent No.2 as well as the Tribunal, while disposing of O.A.No.6788 of 1996, have not kept this principle in mind. Indeed, the petitioner has specifically pleaded before the Tribunal in para-6(e) of O.A.No.6788 of 1996 that Sri S.M. Ali and Sri P.S.N. Raju etc., who are far juniors to him as Head Constables are continued as Sub-Inspectors. This specific averment has not been controverted by the respondents either before the Tribunal or before this Court. When the juniors to the petitioner were continued as Sub-Inspectors, non-restoration of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector is in flagrant violation of the judgment dated 19.04.1994 in O.A.No.5880 of 1992 and batch passed in favour of the petitioner. Instead of considering this aspect, which is the only relevant one for considering the petitioner’s case, respondent No.2 has referred to a cut off date as 09.02.1991, purportedly stipulated by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6890 of 1992 and batch cases. The petitioner is concerned with the order dated
