Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"(b) Any person, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, but considers himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal passed in such proceedings may, with the permission of the Tribunal, on a petition made for this purpose, apply to the Tribunal for the review of an order made by the Tribunal."

On the above ground, he would submit that, the Tribunal erred in holding that the review jurisdiction is entertainable only when there is 'error apparent on the face of record'. He would further submit when this Court had already appreciated the above rule and allowed the petitioners to file a review, the Tribunal would not have opined that it is functus officio, once it has delivered the judgment. The Tribunal also erred in holding that these third parties would have impleaded themselves during the hearing of original application as they had 'constructive knowledge' of the pendency of the same throughout the proceedings till disposal.

9. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioners had filed an I.A. for permission along with review applications wherein they had explained why these petitioners are aggrieved persons to the order of the Tribunal in Original Application. The Tribunal without properly scrutinizing the application has erred in concluding that the petitioners had constructive knowledge of the proceedings before the Tribunal and it also failed to appreciate that setting aside the Special Rules would effect the rights of these petitioners to participate in the recruitment process and be considered for employment. On these grounds, he buttresses his stand on maintainability of the petition.

42. Further, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the petitioners being the aspirants who applied for the post that is now called for, will be the 'aggrieved persons' and so also the 'necessary persons' to the application that was heard before the Tribunal in A.Nos.952-1001/2022. These private respondents, being aware of the factual position, failed to implead them before the Tribunal, thereby depriving them, the opportunity to put-forth their defense in support of the impugned Special Rules,2022, the legality of which is now being decided by this Court under the supervisory jurisdiction. Antithetically, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents would contend that, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6662/2022 vide order dated 14.12.2022 had ordered for status quo and as such, the state had paused the recruitment process in view of the said order and consequently, the same have come to the knowledge of these petitioners who are portraying themselves as the aspirants before this Court and hence, when there exists 'constructive knowledge' as to the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioners have neither made any efforts to approach the Tribunal nor filed any necessary application to that effect. As such, he would contend that, it cannot be said, the petitioners have approached this Court with clean hands. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao supra and submit that, when a vires of a statute is being challenged, there arises no necessity to implead all the effected parties to the case and only primary necessity would be that, the state being the representative of its entire citizens, will be in righteous position to defend its action, so also the voices of its people, will be a necessary party and also be a 'aggrieved person who the Tribunal is bound to hear and accordingly, the Tribunal has heard the contention of the State, which defended its action while making its submission in A.Nos.952-1001/2022.