SHETHNA, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits of service. Provisional Seniority list (Annex. 3) is dated 20. 5. 81 and the seniority list, Annex. 4 is dated 1. 10. 1987. Before filing the petition, the petitioner served the respondents with notice for demand of justice dated 5. 7. 90 to re-fix the seniority in terms of the Apex Court judgment reported in 1990 and filed this writ petition in November, 1990.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri G. L. Khatri for the respondents raised the following preliminary objections :- 1. That the petitioner had a better alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, which he has not availed of. Therefore, in view of the Full Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 1995 R. L. W. page 1 (1) this petition should be dismissed. 2.There is a gross delay of almost three years in filing this petition. Therefore, on the ground of delay and latches also it should be dismissed. 3.The petitioner has not joint those 17 Doctors whose names have been mentioned in para no. 5 of the writ petition. They are necessary parties as any order passed on merits in favour of the petitioner is going to effect them. Therefore, in absence of necessary and proper parties on the record of the petition, this petition is required to be dismissed. Learned counsel Shri Anand Purohit, however, submitted that there was no need for him to implead those 17 Doctors as respondents in this petition as he was claiming seniority over them which was wrongly fixed as per the seniority list by wrong interpretation of rules, therefore, he submits that in absence of those 17 persons also this Court can decide the matter. He further submits that this petition does not suffer from gross delay or latches, as before approaching this Court, the petitioner made a representation in July 1990, but the same was not considered and decided by the respondents for about four months therefore, he has filed this petition. Lastly, he submitted that though he had alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal, this Court having admitted the writ petition should not throw out the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. It is true that this petition is pending before this Court since 1990, but it was straight away admitted on 7. 12. 1990 without issuing notice to the other side to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted. If the respondents were served with notice before admitting the petition then they would have raised this objection which they have raised in their reply regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in para 10 of the writ petition that there is no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy available to him except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but infact he had better alternative and efficacious remedy. The petitioner gave the representation/notice for demand of justice for the first time only in July, 1990 i. e. almost after three years of the final seniority list (Annex. 4 ). The petitioner had to challenge the seniority list within the period of limitation before Service Tribunal by way of appeal. If he had challenged it in 1990 before the Tribunal then also he had to convince the Tribunal first to condone the delay in filing the appeal late as it was already time barred and then to decide the matter on merits. Thus, in my opinion, this petition is also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Merely making representation/notice for demand of justice after lapse of three years and then to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by making grievance that the same has not been answered, would not help the petitioner. If the matter is to be decided o n merits then in my opinion those 17 Doctors, who are likely to be effected were not only proper but necessary parties and no relief could have been granted to the petitioner in absence of those 17 Doctors.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, all the three preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are accepted and the petition is dismissed on the aforesaid grounds without going into the merits of the case. At this stage, a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to approach the Tribunal. It would be open to him to approach the Service Tribunal for which no permission is required from this Court. However, he expresses his apprehension that the appeal would be time barred. It is true that the appeal would be time barred but he has to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Service Tribunal alongwith an appeal and to convince the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal late and decide the matter on merits. I am sure that as and when such application is made, the Tribunal shall consider the cause for condoning delay and if it is convinced that the sufficient cause is made out then it shall decide the matter on merits. With these observations and directions, this petition is dismissed. . ;