T SUBRAMANI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 23.10.1998, the request of the petitioner to revise the seniority in the post of Tamil Pandit, has been rejected by the Joint Director of School Education, the first respondent. The said order is under challenge.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioner has challenged the revision of seniority and consequently prayed for a direction to fix the seniority in the cadre of Tamil Pandit above Smt. P. Jayalakshmi, he has not chosen to implead her as a party respondent in the writ petition. It is well settled that in a matter relating to revision of seniority, the person claiming revision of seniority has to necessarily implead the party, who is likely to be affected by any decision to be made in this writ petition. Useful reference is made to the decisions of this Supreme Court as well as this Court.(i) In Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 167 : (1984) 4 SCC 251, the Supreme Court held that High Court cannot proceed to hear parties and take a decision adverse to those affected persons without getting them or their representatives as parties.(ii) In Baskaran v. Commissioner of College Educational and 2 Others (1996) 1 MLJ 32 : (1995) 2 CTC 513, a Division Bench of this Court following the judgment of Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) case held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and the persons who would be vitally affected by the decision are necessary parties. The Court should dismiss the writ petition, if necessary parties are not impleaded in the writ petition.(iii) In Rajbir Singh, HFS II v. State of Haryana and Another (1996) 2 SCC 19, the dismissal of a writ petition, challenging the inter se seniority, without impleading the other persons was confirmed by the Apex Court.(iv) In yet another decision in Ramarao and Others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Others AIR 2004 SC 1459 : (2004) 2 SCC 76 : (2004) 2 MLJ 66 : 2004-I-LLJ-1061, the Apex Court reiterated the legal position and held that at p.72 of MLJ:27. --An order against the person without impleading him as a party and without giving an opportunity or hearing must be held to be bad in law. The appellants herein, keeping in view of the fact that by reason of the impugned direction, the orders of promotion effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn, indisputably, were necessary parties. In their absence, therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon. In the absence of the -promotees- as parties, therefore, it was not permissible for the High Court to issue the directions by reason of the impugned judgment.-