RAMACHANDRAN Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing O.P. No. 71 of 1983. The appellants were holding the posts of Assistant Grade II in the West Zone. They sought voluntary transfer to south zone. That request was granted and they came to be transferred to the South zone. But they were not posted to function as Assistants Grade II but were posted to function as Assistants Grade III. This according to the appellants was on account of the fact that there were no posts in the south zone at the relevant point of time to accommodate them in the category of Assistants Grade II. When vacancies in the category of Assistants Grade II did arise, as the appellants' case for being accommodated in the cadre of Assistants Grade II was not considered, they came to this Court on an earlier occasion in O.P. No. 4420/78. That writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Zonal Manager and the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India to accord them notional promotion to the category of Assistants Grade II on the dates on which the vacancies arose in the said higher category of Assistants Grade II, That judgment was challenged by the Food Corporation of India in W.A. No. 251/82. The said appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. In pursuance of the said decision, the Food Corporation of India passed orders as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) dated 22-11-1982 fixing the seniority of the appellants in the seniority list of Assistant Grade II by assigning the appropriate rankings.

(2.) It is in the aforesaid circumstances that respondents 3 and 4 presented O.P. No. 71 of 1983 praying for the quashing of Exts.P3 and P3(a) and for a declaration that the judgment Ext. P2 and the judgment in W.A. No. 251/82 are not binding on respondents 3 and 4 and for other consequential reliefs. The principal complaint of respondents 3 and 4 is that as they were not parties to the earlier decisions in O.P. No. 4420 of 1978 and W.A. No. 251/82, the directions issued by this court in those judgments shall not adversely affect their rights. The learned single Judge accepted this contention, quashed Exts.P3 and P3(a) in so far as it relates to the appellants and directed that the dispute between the parties should be decided afresh by the Corporation after hearing all the parties concerned. It is the said judgment that is challenged in this appeal. Before we address ourselves to the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to advert to certain procedural aspects. It is not disputed that in O.P. No. 4420/78 and in W.A. No. 251/82 affirming the said judgment in the O.P., respondents 3 and 4 were not parties. Assuming for the sake of argument that respondents 3 and 4 were necessary parties in the earlier cases, the question for consideration is as to what is the proper procedure to be adopted in a case like this. As things stand, there is one set of directions issued in O.P. No. 4420/78 affirmed in W.A. No. 251/82 directing the Food Corporation of India to assign notional dates of promotion to the appellants as and when vacancies in the category of Assistants Grade II arose after they stood transferred to the south zone. The said decision having been implemented and Exts.P3 and P3(a) having been passed by the Corporation, at the instance of respondents 3 and 4 the learned single Judge has issued a direction in O.P. No. 71/82 quashing those orders which were made in obedience to the directions issued by this court to the Corporation and issued a further direction to the Corporation to examine the matter afresh after due notice to all the parties. Thus we arrive at a situation, where there are two conflicting directions, one in O.P. No. 4420/78 affirmed in W.A. No. 251/82 directing the Food Corporation of India to do certain things and another direction issued by the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 71/83 commanding the Corporation to do something at variance with what has been directed by this court in the earlier case. So far as the Corporation is concerned, it cannot satisfactorily comply with the conflicting directions issued by this court in two sets of cases. In a situation like this, if a particular person is a necessary party and a decision has been rendered without impleading the necessary party, the proper course to be adopted is not to seek contrary directions at the hands of this court under Art.226 but to make an appropriate petition to reopen the earlier judgment on the ground that he was a necessary party and that the adverse decision rendered affects him and to get himself impleaded as a party and get the judgment rendered behind his back reviewed. That is the procedure which has to be followed as laid down by this court in W.A. No. 683 of 1982, wherein it is observed as follows:

(3.) Whatever may be the form in which respondents 3 and 4 sought relief at the hands of this court, this court could apply the principles indicated above and give appropriate reliefs to the parties. Now as the matter has come up before the Division Bench, though by way of appeal, where we are exercising jurisdiction under Art.226, it is open to us to reopen the earlier judgment rendered by this court in W.A No. 251/82, if we are satisfied that grounds exist for doing so. It is from that angle that we propose to examine the merits of the case.