Original application closed at applicants’ counsel’s request, with no order as to costs.

The 18 applicants were serving as Superintendents of Customs and challenged the proposed promotions to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.

They alleged that the respondents had prepared the seniority list of Superintendents on the basis of the “own merit” principle under the Office Memorandum dated 10 August 2010, which they contended had been quashed by courts and tribunals.

They further relied on the catch-up rule and sought revision and recasting of seniority before any promotions were made.

During the hearing, the applicants’ counsel filed a memo stating that, despite attempts to contact the applicants by telephone and registered post, no response had been received, and sought closure of the Original Application.

Whether the Original Application should be closed in view of the applicants’ counsel’s statement that the applicants had not responded despite repeated attempts to contact them.

Whether the Tribunal was required to adjudicate the applicants’ claims concerning revision of seniority, the “own merit” principle, and the catch-up rule before closing the proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that an Original Application may be closed when the applicants, through counsel, seek such closure and no effective instructions or opposition are forthcoming.

The substantive principles relied upon by the applicants—namely, the “own merit” rule under the Office Memorandum dated 10 August 2010, the catch-up rule, and the Supreme Court’s decision reported in 2010 (10) SCC 32 (referred to as Manorama’s case)—were pleaded as the basis of the original grievance but were not adjudicated or applied by the Tribunal.

The applicants’ substantive challenge concerned the legality of the seniority list and the effect of the applicable Supreme Court and other judicial decisions.

However, the applicants’ counsel informed the Tribunal that the applicants had not responded despite contact attempts and expressly requested closure of the OA.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the submission and considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the seniority dispute, the applicability of the “own merit” principle, or the catch-up rule.

It did not decide the merits of the applicants’ claims regarding seniority, promotion, or the applicability of Manorama’s case and related precedents.

There was no order as to costs.