NANU MAL PAHADIA Vs. UNION OF INDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.4.2013. By the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has allowed two Original Applications filed by 8 applicants with the following direction:- "Thus on the basis of the facts and legal position, we are of the view that the official respondents be directed to re-determine the vacancies year-wise after taking into consideration the retirement of the officers who have been on select list for various years. As we have explained earlier that the select list for the year 1996-97 has nine names and there were seven vacancies for that year. Thus presuming that officers at sr. nos. 1 to 3 (S/Shri Raj Bahadur Singh, Amar Singh and Madan Lal Jain) would have been appointed to the IAS on the basis of that select list, had that select list be drawn at that point of time then they would have retired in the year 2003, 2002 and 2005 respectively. Thus the vacancies arising out of their retirement on superannuation would be accrued in the year of their retirement. The same exercise will be required to be done for each select list year wise. The vacancies are to be re-determined on the basis of this principle, which is according to the rules and regulation on the subject. The respondents will also look into the promotion quota for State Civil Service to IAS for that year and the number of officers in position for promotion quota, then determine the vacancies year wise to be filled from appointment by promotion from the State Civil Service Officers. The respondents are also directed to convene the Review Selection Committee Meeting for each of those years for which the vacancies are re-determined and draw a revised/review select list year wise. "

(2.) THE first of these Writ Petitions bearing No.7118/2013, has been filed by Jassa Ram Choudhary and Sube Singh Yadav and the other Writ Petition No.7119/2013, has been filed by as many as 12 petitioners against Union of India and others. Registry of this Court has raised an objection about maintainability of the writ petitions contending that since the writ petitioners were not parties to the Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, these petitions at their instance are not maintainable.

(3.) SHRI S.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicants, has supported the objection citing judgment of Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, (2010) 4 SCC 554, and contended that the Supreme Court in that case, in identical circumstances where the appellants before it were not party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and were merely allowed to intervene in the writ petition filed against the judgment of the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court, held that they were not competent to maintain the appeal against the judgment of Tribunal and that of the High Court. It is also contended by Shri Sharma that remedy for such persons as per the observations of the Supreme Court, is to approach the Tribunal under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Rules), 1987, by way of filing review petition. It was also argued that writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.7118/2013 did not challenge the order of Tribunal by which their applications for impleadment was not allowed and they were merely permitted to intervene. Learned Senior Counsel argued that an intervenor cannot be treated as necessary party. He can at best be considered a proper party.