BIKRAM SINGH Vs. SATISH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the rejection of an application for impleadment sought at the instance of the third party. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration that some adverse entries regarding his alleged illegal possession of shamlat land and conviction in a criminal case for alleged theft of electricity must be removed from the order of the Collector since it has come in the way of consideration of his candidature for an appointment as a Lambardar. The suit relief is, therefore, for deletion of the remarks made by the Collector. The third party who was seeking for impleadment was a person who is said to have brought this fact before the Collector on the basis of which there appears to be independent proceedings before the Collector. The appointment which was originally issued to the plaintiff as Lambardar was later cancelled and the third party was appointed to the said post. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has challenged the decision of cancellation of appointment by means of a writ petition and the third party is also arrayed as a respondent in the said writ petition. The application for impleadment by the subsequent incumbent was sought on the ground that any decision that the Court may take will have a direct bearing to his own appointment, for, if plaintiffs claim for the removal of adverse entry was to be decreed, the plaintiffs claim to the post in preference to the petitioner would obtain primacy. The court rejected the application accepting the contention of the plaintiff that all the petitioner's objections have been brought before the Collector and whatever decision that is taken by the Collector is a matter that is going to be examined by the court, where the Collector himself is a party and consequently impleadment is not necessary.

(2.) Since the prayer in the suit is for removal of some adverse remarks in the Collector's order, the Collector is a party. In my view, the presence of the petitioner is still relevant and his impleadment would be proper in the suit. It would seem to me that the plaintiffs declaration is not merely to remove a blot that has been made regarding his alleged illegal possession and alleged conviction in a case, but it is for a particular purpose of regaining an appointment which he has lost and which is the subject of challenge by means of the writ petition. The petitioner himself is the rival contender for the office and any decision in the civil court will have a direct bearing to his own position as a subsequent appointee. Though not necessary party, the petitioner was still a proper party to the proceedings and the plaintiff in no way would be prejudiced by such impleadment. On the other hand, the presence of the petitioner would enable the court to secure an evidence of what had been brought before the Collector and he will ensure that there is proper defence that is made by the State and would vindicate his own selection subsequently in preference to the plaintiff. The respondent has an apprehension that the petitioner will utilize the opportunity of his presence in the suit to heap innuendos against the plaintiff and sully his esteem and good name. The court shall ensure that the defendant's presence is only in the context of adverse remarks entered for two instances in the order of the Collector. The petitioner shall not be permitted on impleadment to bring any other fact than the subject which is sought to be expunged from the Collector's order. The order passed, under the circumstances, is set aside and the revision petition is allowed on the above terms.