ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
Heard the Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.1347 of 2014 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. He joined service in the Civil Supplies Department on 01/07/1997 as LDC. After probation was declared and clearing account test held in June, 2000, he was promoted as UDC on 01/11/2000.
3. In Annexure-A1 draft seniority list of UDC for the period from 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2000 he was included at Serial No.351. However, in Annexure-A2 final seniority list he was assigned Rank No.393. According to the petitioner, several persons, who were junior to him, were assigned seniority over him in the final seniority list. He therefore filed an appeal under Rule 27-B. That was rejected.
O.P.(KAT).No.343 of 2014 2
4. Following the orders passed by the Tribunal in an O.A. filed by the petitioner the matter was re-considered and finally Government issued Annexure-A7 order. In Annexure-A7 the Government took the view that the petitioner got test qualified only on 16/10/2000 and his junior became test qualified earlier and therefore they were promoted to vacancies which also arose prior to the petitioner acquiring the test qualification. It is also stated the petitioner was promoted to the vacancy which arose after 16/10/2000.
5. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner filed O.A. which was rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are illegal and he placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [(2007) 1 SCC 683].
6. Having considered the submissions made, we are of the view that Original Application could not have been entertained by the Tribunal for the simple reason that the O.A.
O.P.(KAT).No.343 of 2014 3 was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. If the reliefs sought for by the petitioner were granted, that would have affected the alleged juniors, who were assigned seniority over the petitioner, when Annexure-A2 Final Seniority List was published. Such a relief could not have been sought for by the petitioner without impleading the persons who are likely to be affected. Therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the O.A. on the ground of the non-joinder of the parties itself.
For that reason we are not inclined to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. Therefore O.P.(KAT) is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj