Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Rai And 16 Others vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
***
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. -283 of 2021
(Arising out of Writ A No. 46943 of 2021)
Anil Kumar Rai and others ...Appellants
Through:- Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Malik Juned Ahmad, Advocate
Vs.
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Through:- Mr. Purnendu Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4
AND
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. -378 of 2021
(Arising out of Writ A No. 46943 of 2021)
A.K. Dubey and others ...Appellants
Through:- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Vs.
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Through:- Mr. Purnendu Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing Special Appeal Nos. 283 and 378 of 2021.
2. The two appeals have been filed by different writ petitioners challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge dated September 15, 2021 in Writ A No.46943 of 2014.
3. The issue raised is pertaining to seniority of Sub Inspectors in Central Reserve Police Force (in short ''CRPF'). Besides the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of writ petition, we find that even otherwise the claim made by the appellants was highly belated. It is not in dispute that the final seniority list of Sub Inspectors of CRPF was notified on February 1, 2011. Challenge to the same was made by the appellants by filing Writ A No. 7470 of 2014 (Anil Kumar Rai and others vs. Union of India and others) more than three years thereafter. The same was disposed of on February 6, 2014 with an observation that a new seniority list is to be prepared in 2014 and the petitioners may file objections, which have to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appellants thereafter filed objections and the same have been rejected. The order was challenged in the writ petition.
4. The fact remains that none of the Sub Inspector, who was shown senior to the appellants in the final seniority list circulated on February 1, 2011 was impleaded as party in the writ petition. In absence thereof, challenge to the seniority list will not be maintainable as the persons, who were likely to be affected, were not impleaded as party.
5. In Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported at (2006) 8 SCC 129, Hon'ble the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of impleading persons who would be affected by the determination of seniority, observing:
"The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority."
6. Effect of non-impleadment of necessary parties was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported at (2012) 7 SCC 610, wherein following the well-settled proposition relief was declined to the petitioners when the affected parties were not impleaded, it was observed:
" .... Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Singh and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant."
7. Importing the principles of joinder of parties under Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the writ jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported at (2014) 16 SCC 187, again highlighted the necessity of impleading the persons, who would be affected as a result of any order passed in the writ petition and refused to grant relief to the petitioners on account of failure to implead necessary parties.
8. As far as the appeals in hand are concerned, though in one appeal, i.e., Special Appeal No. 378 of 2021, the stand taken is that the Sub Inspectors, who were shown senior to the appellants in the seniority list, were not required to be impleaded as party, however in another appeal, i.e., Special Appeal No. 283 of 2021, they are now sought to be impleaded as party. However, the fact remains that in case affected persons are now allowed to be impleaded as party to the litigation that would amount to challenging their seniority position in the year 2021 i.e. nearly ten years after the seniority list was circulated. The argument that they were not required to be impleaded as party is totally misconceived as no order can be passed affecting the rights of the persons without hearing them.
9. Even otherwise, in the cases in hand the appellants had chosen to challenge the seniority list finalized in 2011 by filing the writ petition in 2014, i.e., after three years. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra having been considered way back by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1974) 1 SCC 317. The Court in the Ramchandra Shankar'case (supra) considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand and others Vs. H.B. Munshi and another (1969) 1 SCC 110, wherein it has been observed that the principle on which the court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under:
"... The party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court."
10. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the present appeals. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Piyush Agrawal) (Rajesh Bindal)
Judge Chief Justice
Allahabad
April 11, 2022
Manish Himwan/P.Sri.
Whether the order is speaking : Yes√/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
