UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANTOSH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure the applicants have sought review of this court's order dated 24/8/1998. In order to dispose of this application, it is necessary to give briefly the background of the controversy.

(2.) The Railways employed certain typists on ad hoc basis in the years 1979-80 from the open market on ad hoc basis by way of stop-gap arrangement till regularly selected hands could be available from the Railway Service Commission, Allahabad. The recruitment of typists is regulated by para 75 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual Volume-I. The said provision does not envisage typists being employed from the open market. The administration had to resort to open market employment because of the non-availability of typists of the Railways Service Commission. The petitioners in the review application are typists who were regularly appointed by way of selection through the Railway Service Commission and were employed subsequent to the typists employed from the open market. The controversy is regarding the seniority of the two sets of typists. The Railway administration had placed the regularly selected and appointed typists as senior to the typists who were employed from the open market. This led to the typist employed from the open market filing an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgement dated 22/4/1998 allowed the OA. The Railway administration filed the present writ petition (CW.4135/98) challenging the order of the Tribal. This court by its order dated 24/8/1998 dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the decision of the Tribunal.

(3.) The present review application has been filed by the typists who were employed regularly through the Railway Service Commission. Their main grievance is that they are directly affected by the decision of the Tribunal as also the decision of this court, which put a seal of approval on the decision of the Tribunal. By these decisions the typists employed through the open market have been given benefit of their entire service right from the day they were recruited. As a result whereof they have become senior to the regularly appointed typists. The Tribunal by its judgement gave the benefit of continuous length of service to the applicants before the Tribunal i.e. typists who were employed from the open market contrary to the rules. Thus the seniority of applicants in the review application has been directly affected as a result of the decision of the Tribunal. These persons were neither parties before the Tribunal nor were they impleaded in the writ petition filed in this court. Their grievance is that they are aggrieved parties so far as the decision of the Tribunal and the decision of this court are concerned and they should have been heard before any decision adverse to them was taken.