R RAJARETHINAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records of the second respondent comprised in his proceedings in R.No,38666/94/MP.I/SI.1, dated 10.3.1994 (Fixation of Revised Provisional Inter-se-seniority of Multipurpose Health Supervisors), set aside the said proceedings of the second respondent dated 10.3.1994 insofar as the applicants are concerned only and consequently, to direct the respondents to refix the seniority placing the applicants (T.N.P.S.C. Direct Recruits) over and above the Departmental promotees in the seniority of multipurpose Health Supervisors as on 1.1.84 and further direct respondents as such accord retrospective promotion to the applicants forthwith.) Heard both sides.

(2.) THIS writ petition arose out of O.A.No,442 of 1996 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No,28044 of 2006.

(3.) HOWEVER, Mr.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to distinguish the said judgment by stating that at the maximum, the affected persons can be proper parties, but they need not be necessary parties and their non joinder cannot be fatal to the writ petition. Reliance was placed upon the following decision in V.P. Shrivastava v. State of M.P. Reported in (1996) 7 SCC 759. Emphasis was placed upon the following passage found in paragraphs 15 to 17 of the said judgment, which are as follows: 15. In the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, a similar contention was also repelled by this Court in the following words: (SCC pp.625-26, para 36) -In this case, appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents.- 16. Further in view of the finding of the Tribunal that Respondents 3 and 4 successfully safeguarded the interest of the promotees, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that non-inclusion of the affected parties is fatal to the proceeding. It has been held by this Court in the case of Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P.6, that: (SCC Headnote p.256) -A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually.- 17. Even in Janardhana case5 referred to supra, this Court also rejected a similar objection on the ground that 9 of the direct recruits having been impleaded as party, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented and therefore the non-inclusion of all the 400 and odd direct recruits is not fatal to the proceedings.