NAND LAL DAS S/O SHIV RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of this application the following orders of respondents have been challenged:

(2.) At the outset, the learned Counsel of respondents took exception to the claim of applicants stating that if relief sought for by applicants is granted to them, there will be a large number of persons who will be adversely affected but have not been impleaded in the array of respondents. As such, this application is not maintainable. The learned Counsel of applicants relying on 2003 (1) ATJ 558 (CAT) - Sanyukta Arjuna v Union of India and Ors. contended that when a principle of law is assailed, affected parties need not be made necessary parties. Interest of necessary parties would be safeguarded by putting them to notice before refixing the seniority of applicants. In that case applicant had claimed seniority on the basis of Rule 12(2) of Central Secretariat Official Language (Group 'C' Posts) Rules, 1981. Paragraph 22 of the judgment reads as follows:

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of applicants that they were initially selected for the post of Diesel Assistants through Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad. IT is alleged that while other persons were sent for training in the year 1987, applicants were sent for training in the year 1989. IT is claimed that delay in training of applicants is not attributable to applicants but was due to the fault of the administration itself.