H P KUREEL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 28th March, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1658/1996. The impugned judgment is largely based upon the dismissal of the O.A. filed by the petitioner for non-joinder of the parties. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it has been held that the result of the O.A. would affect the seniority of the persons at serial No. 438 to 588 in the seniority list and accordingly their non-joinder was fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raju submits that he did not and is not claiming any relief against any of these persons and this makes the judgment of the Tribunal totally flawed.

(3.) The position of law in respect of non-joinder of the parties in service matters is to be found in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.f. Shrivastava and Ors. vs. The State of M.P. and Ors., JT 1996(2) S.C. 374 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up the position of law as follows:-