Anjani Kumar, Sudhir Agarwal - (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. In brief the claim of the private respondents appears to be that they were appointed as Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 on 7.7.1978, 16.11.1979 and 26.8.1977 respectively. A suitability test for the post of Senior Clerk was held in the year 1982 and the result was declared on 6.9.1982. A representation against the said panel was made by one Laxmi Narain Singh and consequently the C.S.C., Gorakhpur, vide order dated 25.9.1984 cancelled the aforesaid panel. One candidate filed civil suit which was transferred to the Tribunal, registered as T.A. No. 1642 of 1986 and was allowed by the Tribunal on 20.10.1987 whereupon the C.S.C., Gorakhpur recalled office order dated 25.8.1984. Sri Kedar Nath Prasad, private respondent thereafter by representation dated 24.3.1988, prayed the C.S.C., Gorakhpur to implement panel dated 6.9.1982 but the said authority actually promoted only one Sri Abhiman vide office order dated 25.3.1988 w.e.f. 6.9.1982. The matter was again represented on 2.5.1988 and thereafter a further representation was made to General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur on 16.9.1988. In the meantime Sri Abhiman was further promoted as Head Clerk w.e.f. 5.3.1990 and Office Superintendent Grade II w.e.f. 5.9.1995. A seniority list of Senior Clerk was published on 31.10.1996 where in the cadre of Office Superintendent Grade II, Sri Abhiman was shown at serial No. 8 ; the private respondent, Kedar Nath Prasad was shown in the cadre of Head Clerks at serial No. 24 showing his date of promotion as 13/14.8.1996 ; and Sri Sarvendra Vikram Singh and Sri Dashrath Singh Yadav were shown in the cadre of Senior Clerk at Serial Nos. 8 and 6 respectively showing their date of promotion on the post of senior clerk as 2.1.1991 and 7.3.1990 respectively. The authorities also notified further selection for the post of Office Superintendent, Grade II, vide notification dated 12.3.1997. At this stage, the private respondents filed the claim petition challenging the aforesaid seniority list and seeking following relief : "(i) to issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to give promotional benefit as Senior Clerk in scale of Rs. 330-560 w.e.f. 6.9.1982, as Head Clerk in scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 w.e.f. 5.3.1990 and as Office Superintendent Grade II w.e.f. 5.9.1995 with similar fixation of pay and increment with arrears of pay and other service benefits permissible under Service Rules after correcting seniority list dated 31.10.1996 (Annexure-A1) ; (ii) to issue any other order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
(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. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the seniority list itself was challenged by the private respondents and a relief was sought for correction of the said seniority list, no order could have been passed by the Tribunal without impleadment of the persons who were likely to be affected, i.e., those who were assigned seniority over private respondents and in the absence thereof the original application was liable to be dismissed on account of non-impleadment of necessary parties. He further contended that in the absence of necessary and proper parties, who were likely to be affected, they could not point out the Tribunal that Sri Abhiman was promoted on the post of senior clerk in the vacancy meant for reserve quota and, therefore, the private respondents could not claim parity or similarity with Sri Abhiman.;