NARESH SINGH Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19th October, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A No.885/2009 titled as Sh.R.P.Prasad & Ors v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors whereby the counsel for the petitioners was allowed to withdraw the original application of the petitioners with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the recruitment rules and methodology adopted by the respondents in their selection by impleading the affected parties. The petitioners has also challenged the dismissal of their miscellaneous application No.2585/2009 seeking recalling/modification of the order dated 19th October, 2009 which was also dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 19th February, 2010 holding that miscellaneous application is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has very emphatically contended that the order dated 19th October, 2009 withdrawing the original application is based on wrong concessions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the petition on behalf of petitioners was not liable to be withdrawn in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (1974) 4 SCC 335, The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R.Siddhanti; 1983 (3) SCC 601, A.Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors; 1990(Suppl) SCC 701, Union of India v. M.P.Singh; 1996 (7) SCC 759, V.P.Srivastava v. State of M.P; (2001) 5 SCC 60, Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. Dr.K.Santhakumari and 2003 (5) SCC 321, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences Education and Research and Anr v. A.P.Wasan that other affected persons are not the necessary parties and the petitioners do not wish to challenge the recruitment rules and they only challenge the methodology adopted by the respondents.

(2.) Perusal of the judgment relied on by the petitioners reveal that they are distinguishable. In General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors (Supra), it was held that the employees who were likely to be affected as a result of readjustment of the seniority of the petitioner in that case in accordance with the principles laid down in the Boards decisions were at the most could be proper parties and not necessary parties and their non joinder could not be fatal for the writ petition. The Supreme Court, however, had not decided in the said case whether a petition which had been withdrawn could be allowed to be re- agitated in the facts and circumstances as has been alleged by the petitioner. In A.Janardhana (Supra), the dispute before the Apex Court was regarding determination of inter se seniority of the promotees and direct recruits and it was held that inter se seniority should be based on just, clear and equitable criterion. In Union of India v. M.P.Singh (Supra), it was held that all the parties need not be impleaded where validity of a rule is being challenged especially where the Tribunal had protected interest of all those persons who were working at that time by directing that they shall not be disturbed and non impleadment of those who should be affected in future could not render the petition vulnerable. In V.P.Srivastava and ors (Supra), the dispute was regarding the seniority of direct recruits and promotees and it was held that non impleadment of all the promotees particularly when the Tribunal found that the impleadment of two of the promotees had safeguarded the interest of the promotees was not fatal to the application.

(3.) In Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha and Anr (Supra), an admission was made by the counsel contrary to rule and it was held that a concession made contrary to rules will not bind the parties. The case of the petitioner is, however, distinguishable as no such concession had been made by the earlier counsel as considering the facts and circumstances, it was deemed appropriate by the counsel to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition by impleading the affected parties. Nothing has been filed by the petitioners that the earlier counsel who withdrew the petition had acted contrary to any written instructions of the petitioners. In Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Anr (Supra), the dispute was whether the promotion should be section wise or cadre wise where some employees who were not parties before High Court sought intervention on the ground that their career prospects would be jeopardized by the decision of the High Court without their being given any opportunity of being heard. In the peculiar facts of that case it was held that the plea of interveners was not sustainable.