SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that being the promotees of 1979 they ought to have been placed above the direct recruitees of 1979 in the seniority list but their names have been shown below the names of the direct recruitees in the said list.
(2.) THE averments made in the writ petitions by the petitioners are that according to Regulation 11 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1976 (for short the Regulation 1976) the promotees will rank senior to those who will be appointed by direct recruitment. This legal position was further clarified by the Rajasthan Housing Board's order dated April 18, 1988. But mandate of Regulation 11 has been flouted and direct recruitees of 1979 were rank senior to the promotees of 1979 in the seniority list prepared by the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board. Respondent Rajasthan Housing Board (for short the RHB) submitted reply only in writ petition No. 1243/89 and 1244/89. Direct recruitees of 1979 Sarva Shri Som Dutt, R. K. Bhatt, R. K. Agarwal, D. K. Mathur, S. R. Jangid, Jayant Goswami and S. R. Joshi were impleaded as respondents in the said writ petitions by the order dated May 23, 1989 of this court. A close look at the material on record demonstrates that the petitioners who were working as Junior Site Engineers were posted/transferred as Site Engineers vide order dated April 23, 1979. Thereafter another order dated July 26, 1979 was issued by the RHB in supersession of the earlier order dated April 23, 1979 whereby the petitioners were promoted as Officiating Site Engineers on adhoc basis. It appears that meeting of departmental promotion committee was held on May 26, 1980 and as per recommendation of said committee the petitioners were promoted as Site Engineers vide order dated July 1, 1980 and were kept on probation for two years w. e. f. May 26, 1980. In the order dated July 1, 1980 the petitioners were shown as Junior Site Engineers and from this post they were ordered to be promoted as Site Engineers. I will now adumbrate the rival submissions. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitions suffer from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that in absence of direct recruitees of 1979 no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Reliance was placed on Prabhodh Verma vs. State of U. P. (1), Ishwar Singh vs. Kuldip Singh (2), J. Josh Dhanpaul vs. S. Thomas (3) and Arun Tewari vs. Zila Mansvi Shikshak Sangh
(3.) REFUTING the objection learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that very principle of determination of seniority made by the RHB is under challenge in the petitions. The persons who are likely to be affected as a result of the readjustment of the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with Regulation 11, are at the most proper parties and not necessary parties and their non-joinder is not fatal to the writ petition. Reliance was placed on V. P. Shrivastava vs. State of M. P. It was further contended that amongst the persons recruited in the same year, the promotees will rank senior to those who will be appointed by direct recruitment and the respondent RHB ought to have placed the petitioners above the direct recruitees of 1979. As most of the direct recruitees on their application were impleaded as parties in writ petitions No. 1243/89 and 1244/89, it cannot be said that the petitions suffer from defect of non-joinder of parties. It is well settled that affected persons should be impleaded in the petition. If their number is large atleast some of them should be incorporated in a representative capacity. In the matters before me the petitioners have not impleaded affected persons but the affected persons themselves have come before the court in two of the petitions and this court has impleaded them as parties. Though they have not been impleaded in other two petitions yet their rights have not been affected as all the petitions have been heard analogously. As already stated the initial promotion of the petitioners was only adhoc and not according to rules. The petitioners were posted/transferred as Site Engineers on April 23, 1979 thereafter they were promoted as officiating Site Engineers on July 26, 1979 on adhoc basis. Regulation 10 (e) of the Regulations of 1976 provides that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the cases of promotion. Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the cases of promotion of the petitioners was held on May 26, 1980 and on the recommendation of the said committee the petitioners were promoted as Site Engineers w. e. f. May 26, 1980. The initial promotion of the petitioners in the year 1979 was made as a stop gap arrangement and such officiation cannot be taken into account for considering their seniority. ;