P C Gandhi vs Commissioner & Additional Dir Ector Of ... on 20 September, 2017

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

P C Gandhi vs Commissioner & Additional Dir Ector Of ... on 20 September, 2017

Bench: A.S. Supehia

               C/SCA/14118/2005                                             JUDGMENT



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14118 of 2005
          
                  FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA   Sd/
         ===================================================
         1  Whether Reporters of Local Papers may 
            be allowed to see the judgment ?           NO

         2  To   be   referred   to   the   Reporter   or 
            not ?                                                                     NO

         3  Whether   their   Lordships   wish   to   see 
            the fair copy of the judgment ?                                           NO

         4  Whether   this   case   involves   a 
            substantial question of law as to the 
            interpretation   of   the   Constitution  of                              NO
            India or any order made thereunder ?

         ===================================================
                        P C GANDHI....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
           COMMISSIONER & ADDITIONAL DIR ECTOR OF GENERAL OF 
                       POLICE  &  1....Respondent(s)
         ===================================================
         Appearance:
         MR GUNVANT R THAKAR, ADVOCATE for Petitioner No. 1
         MR HS SONI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1  2
         ===================================================
           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                             Date : 20/09/2017
                                ORAL JUDGMENT

(1) The present petition is filed, inter alia, with the following prayers:

"(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) quash and set aside the provisional list as well as final seniority list for the cadre of Senior Clerk, showing the position as on 1/1/2004 issued by respondent No.1 on 17/4/2004 and 14/62005 and also quash and set aside the provisional and final seniority list for the Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 24 22:31:20 IST 2017 C/SCA/14118/2005 JUDGMENT cadre of Head Clerk, showing the position as on 1/1/2004 issued by the respondent No.1 on 8/4/2004 and 14/6/2005;

(c) direct the respondents to implement for all the purposes of the services, the final seniority list for the cadre of Clerks/Typists showing the position as on 1/6/1970 to 1/1/1996, as issued on 3/1/2001 by the respondent No.1; and"

(2) In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the provisional list as well as final seniority list for the cadre of Senior Clerk, showing the position as on 01.01.2004. The cause title of the petition reveals that none of the candidates from the seniority list are made party respondents in the petition. It is settled law that if a seniority position or seniority list is sought to be challenged then the affected persons are required to be joined as party respondents. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, 2014 (1) SCC 144 after considering various judgments in the cases of Vijay Kumar Kaul and others Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 610, Indu Shekhar Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129, Public Service Commission Vs. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204, Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 and Tridip Kumar Dingal Vs. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768, Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 24 22:31:20 IST 2017 C/SCA/14118/2005 JUDGMENT J.S. Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 570, has held if the affected parties are not arrayed in the lis, an adverse order cannot be passed against them.

(3) When the matter was notified for final hearing, realizing the lacuna in the writ petition about nonjoinder of necessary parties, the petitioner filed Civil Application (for amendment) No.7423 of 2017 in the writ petition for joining the four respondent at the stage of final hearing. By order dated 14.09.2017, passed by this Court the said civil application was dismissed.

(4) Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the consent letter of one Shri Harshvardhan Mansukhlal Doshi dated 25.07.2017 in support of his submission that one of the affected persons had consented to abide by the decision of this Court. He has stated that if the petition is allowed then only four persons would be affected. Mr.Thakker while taking shelter under paragraph No.11 of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 14.09.2017 has urged that the he may be permitted to join Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 24 22:31:20 IST 2017 C/SCA/14118/2005 JUDGMENT the four persons in the writ petition. The aforesaid submission of the learned Advocate Mr.Thakker does not merit acceptance, as the petitioner has challenged the entire provisional and final seniority list. It is pertinent to note that the said list contains seniority position of 125 employees showing the position as on 01.06.1970 to 01.01.1996. Thus, even if four persons have given consent of following the decision of this Court, such consent cannot absolve the petitioner from the observations made by the Apex Court in foregoing judgements. In that view of the matter, the candidates whose names are placed in the seniority list cannot be disturbed at this stage after so many years as most of them might have retired from service.

(5) In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. RULE is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/ [A. S. SUPEHIA, J] *** Bhavesh[pps]* Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 24 22:31:20 IST 2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court