JOGENDRA YADAV Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These two writ petitions arise out of the same judgment dated 21.5.1999 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the "Tribunal") in Original Application No. 116 of 1998, therefore, as requested by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) SRI Kedar Nath Prasad, SRI Sarvendra Vikram Singh and SRI Dasrath Singh Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the "private respondents") filed Original Application No. 116 of 1998 before the Tribunal challenging seniority list dated 31.10.1996 published by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., (hereinafter referred to as the "C.S.C.") North Eastern Railway, Varanasi and also the selection for the post of Office Superintendent Grade II notified by the said authority on 12.3.1997.

(3.) THE private respondents impleaded only Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., North Eastern Railway, Varanasi and Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F., North Eastern Railway, Varanasi as respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Railway authorities") in the said original application but none of those who were placed above in the seniority list impleaded. THE Tribunal has allowed the original application observing that they were entitled to be promoted on the post of senior clerk by restoring their position as it was before the issuance of the order dated 25.8.l984 and therefore, has directed the authorities to revise seniority list accordingly. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Writ Petition No. 37524 of 1999 has been filed by the Railway authorities while Writ Petition Nos. 35524 of 1999 and 45708 of 1999 has been filed by the private persons (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners") who were assigned seniority in the aforesaid seniority list much above the private respondents and the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Tribunal has adversely affected all these petitioners though they were not given any opportunity of hearing since they were not impleaded before the Tribunal.