- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner was an Income Tax Officer who had undergone various stages of litigation as having been implicated in criminal case, departmental proceedings and then writ jurisdiction. His case was that he was wrongly denied promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax. In the original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had prayed that his case for promotion be considered and a review DPC be called. Significantly the Central Administrative Tribunal having considered the merits, rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner came before us in the writ jurisdiction and we notice that the parties who could be affected by the review DPC have not been impleaded as parties either in the original application or before us.
(3.) In our considered opinion, as and when a review DPC is called, all those who would be the subject matter of consideration in that earlier DPC, which is sought to be reviewed by a review DPC, become necessary parties and in that view of the matter, the petition of the petitioner suffers from misjoinder of the parties.;