(PER :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Joy Mathew waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, learned Advocate Nikhil Kariel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 19 and Mr.Anand L.Sharma waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.22 to 26, 28 to 33, 36 to 38, 45, 46 and 48 to 51.
2. The present petition is filed by 7 persons mentioning in para-2 of the petition as under:-
2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Final Order dated 9.5.2012 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in the private respondents joint Original Application No.263 of 2010. In so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, the aforesaid order is an ex parte decision of the Learned Tribunal in a proceeding wherein the petitioners herein were not at all impleaded as party respondents even though the petitioners are necessary and proper parties in the said proceedings inasmuch as all the petitioners herein are included in the revised merit list which the private respondents herein wanted the Learned Tribunal to be declared as illegal.....
(emphasis supplied)
3. A copy of Original Application No.263 of 2010 is produced at Annexure-12, page No.90. The Original Application is filed by as many as 15 persons, impleading as many as 35 respondents, of which Nos.1 to 4 are authorities and Nos.5 to 35 are inviduals. The opening para of the Original Application states as under:-
The applicants seek to challenge the decision of the respondent authorities whereby they have termed the departmental examination for promotion as per the recruitment rules to the post of Section Supervisors ( SS for short) as qualifying examination rather than merit based examination. The applicants further seek to challenge the decision of the respondent authorities of declaring select list based upon the departmental examination referred to here-in-above as a perpetual select list i.e. validity of the select list remaining in force till all the persons in the select list have been appointed rather than terming the list as a merit list whereby validity of the list would remain in force till the number of notified vacancies are filled in. The petitioners further seek to challenge the ad-hoc promotions issued by the respondent authorities from the said Select List without there being any actual vacancies available in the said post.
(emphasis supplied) 3.1 The relief sought for in the prayer clause reads as under:-
IX) d. to declare that the respondent authorities by preparing the select list dated 9.1.2009, based on inter-se merit of candidates in the departmental examination and further having granted adhoc promotion to such candidates on the basis of such select list has acquiesced the fact that examination envisaged under the Recruitment Rules of SS is competitive examination and not a qualifying examination.
e. to declare that the examination envisaged in the Recruitment Rules of SS can be held only with reference to the number of vacancies available and anticipation on the date of the examination or a reasonable period thereafter and this Hon ble Tribunal may be further pleased to declare that the select list prepared on the basis of departmental examination can only be with reference to the number of vacancies available.
f. to declare that the select list dated 9.1.2009 and subsequent adhoc promotions based upon the said select list, as being illegal insofar as the list as well as the promotions travel beyond the number of vacancies available on the date of examinations and further this Hon ble Tribunal may be further pleased to quash and set aside the select list dated 9.1.2009 and further adhoc promotions based upon the said select list, insofar as the list and adhoc promotions travel beyond the number of vacancies available on the date of examination.
(emphasis supplied)
4. The matter was heard at length. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi for the petitioners submitted that it was incumbent upon the applicants before the Tribunal to implead the present petitioners as party respondents. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that there was no valid reason for not impleading the present petitioners as party respondents, when the applicant before the Tribunal was seeking twofold relief (1) for quashing of merit list and (2) quashing of ad hoc promotions. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that when any relief sought for is going to adversely affect a person, that person is a necessary party, to be impleaded and only on that short ground, the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded for being considered in presence of the present petitioners.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Kariel appearing for the original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench submitted that the persons who were given ad hoc promotions are impleaded as party respondents from Sr. Nos.5 to 35 and as according to him, the merit list was prepared de hors the rules and regulations governing the subject, the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench did not deem it proper to impleade all the persons whose names appear in the merit list. The sum and substance of the submission of learned Advocate Mr.Kariel was that as the merit list was prepared without reference to the vacancies existing, the merit list itself was invalid and therefore, the relief sought for of quashing of the merit list was mainly against the establishment and the present petitioners were not required to be impleaded as party respondents.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi for the petitioners warrant acceptance for the simple reason that relief sought in any form if is going to affect a person, that person is a necessary and proper party, to be impleaded as a party. In absence of that, the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench cannot be allowed to stand.
8. In the result, the petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application No.263 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, with liberty to the applicants before the Tribunal to impleade the affected parties and proceed with the matter.
9. At the request of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, it is clarified that the matter be decided after the present petitioners and other similarly situated persons are impleaded as party respondents, after giving them full opportunity and without being influenced by the fact that the petition was allowed at their behest. The Tribunal is expected to give full opportunity to all the affected persons before deciding the matter on merits.
10. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.) (R.D.Kothari, J.) *Shitole Page 7 of 7