Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors. vs. Jayanta Dey And 7 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners in WP(C) 1820/2018 were necessary parties to the Original Application before the learned Tribunal, as they had a vital interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The Court found that the parties were not in agreement regarding whether the Seniority List as on 01.06.2005 was draft or final, and this divergence needed to be resolved. Furthermore, the Court noted that a notification dated 08.09.2014, issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in N.R. Parmar, was not considered by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioners in WP(C) 1820/2018 were impleaded as respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original Application.

Facts

The petitioners in WP(C) 1820/2018 challenged an order dated 08.11.2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench. The CAT had allowed an Original Application (OA) filed by certain applicants, directing the respondents to review and finalize a draft Seniority List for Inspectors of Central Excise, Shillong Zone, as on 01.04.2015, circulated on 23.02.2016. The petitioners in WP(C) 1820/2018 were placed above the OA applicants in this draft list but were not made parties to the OA. The High Court had initially suspended the CAT's order. The OA sought to quash the draft seniority list and restore seniority based on a list from 01.06.2005.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in issuing directions without impleading the petitioners in WP(C) 1820/2018, who are vitally interested in the subject matter? 2. Whether the Seniority List as on 01.06.2005 is a draft or a final seniority list? 3. Whether the notification dated 08.09.2014, issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in N.R. Parmar & Ors., should be considered in the fixation of seniority? Petitioner's (WP(C) 1820/2018) and Revenue's (WP(C) 3118/2018) arguments: The learned Tribunal erred by not impleading the petitioners in WP(C) 1820/2018, who were directly affected by the seniority list. They also argued that the notification dated 08.09.2014, concerning inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, was not considered by the Tribunal. They contended that the Seniority List as on 01.06.2005 was not finalized and that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration after impleading the necessary parties. Respondent's (WP(C) 1820/2018) and Petitioner's (WP(C) 3118/2018) arguments: The Seniority List as on 01.06.2005 was finalized. Since only a legal point was involved, impleading the writ petitioners in WP(C) 3118/2018 was not necessary, as their names appeared above the applicants in the draft list. They argued that no contentious issue was involved and the Tribunal was justified in its directions.