9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court took note of the fact that when no steps had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. It was further observed that the number of selected candidates was not many and there was no difficulty for the Appellant to implead them as parties in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Court held that when all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no relief could be granted to the Appellant therein. In Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. [ 2008 (11) TMI 718 - SUPREME COURT ], this Court approved the view expressed by the tribunal which had opined that for absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the selection could not be set aside. Thus, in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ Petitioners. When the Respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actice was to conduct an examination and thereafter hold interview for selection; that the interview was held in a hurried manner; and that the posts being technical in nature, holding of an examination was warranted. 2. We need not state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the concerned department of the State Government, 182 persons were appointed on the post of MLT. The writ Petitioners who participated in the interview could not be selected as they obtained lesser marks than the successful candidates. Their failure necessitated them to knock at the doors of the High Court and the learned Single Judge, as has been stated hereinbefore, accepting the grounds put forth, quashed the selection. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants have raised two principal contentions, first, most of the Appellants herein were not impleaded as Respondents before the High Court and without taking note of the said aspect the High Court has invalidated the selection and nullified their appointments which is violative of the principles of natural justice; and second, all the private Respondents who were writ Petitioners before the High Court havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing made Respondents in a representative capacity, and had the Petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. In the case at hand neither any rule nor Regulation was challenged. In fact, we have been apprised that at the time of selection and appointment there was no rule or Regulation. A procedure used to be adopted by the administrative instructions. That apart, it was not a large body of appointees but only 182 appointees. Quite apart from that the persons who were impleaded, were not treated to be in the representative capacity. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to some authorities. In Indu Shekhar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 129 it has been held thus: There is another aspect of the matter. The Appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the Respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority. 6. In Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 724, after referring to Prabodh Verma (supra) and Indu Shekhar Singh (supra), the Court took note of the fact that when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further held that the litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the Court, be it a Plaintiff or a Defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In service jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity. 10. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 610 it has been ruled thus: Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the Appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant. 11. Recently in State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal (2014) 1 SCC 144, it has been opined that: Despite the indefatigable effort, we are not persuaded to accept the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
