2012 (10) TMI 65 - HC - Indian Laws

Court overturns Tribunal's dismissal, finding petitioner's challenge to CPWD seniority list timely and proper party joinder.

BALJIT SINGH BAHMANIA Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

BALJIT SINGH BAHMANIA Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - TMI Issues Involved:1. Limitation and laches.2. Non-joinder of necessary parties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation and Laches:The petitioner challenged the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in CPWD, circulated on 01.08.2011, asserting that his placement at S.No.791 was incorrect and should be below S.No.557 and above S.No.558. The petitioner argued that his date of promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) should be 04.06.1993 instead of 29.11.1994. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the grounds of delay and laches, stating that the cause of action arose on 01.04.2002 when the provisional seniority list was circulated, and again in 2006 when promotions were made based on that list. The Tribunal held that the petitioner's claim was stale as he did not challenge the seniority list or the 2006 promotion order in a timely manner.The petitioner contended that he had been agitating his placement through representations and an RTI application, and that the final seniority list issued on 01.08.2011 provided a fresh cause of action. The petitioner cited Supreme Court decisions in G.P. Doval, V.P. Shrivastava, and M. Pachiappan to support his claim that his application was timely as it challenged the final seniority list.The respondents, supporting the Tribunal's decision, cited Supreme Court cases B.S. Bajwa, Tarsem Singh, and S. Sumnyan, arguing that the petitioner's claim was barred by delay and laches as it disturbed settled rights of third parties.The court found that the petitioner had been actively contesting his seniority and that the final seniority list issued on 01.08.2011 provided a valid cause of action. The court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds of delay and laches, noting that the petitioner approached the Tribunal in 2011, immediately after the final seniority list was published.2. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:The Tribunal also dismissed the petition on the grounds of non-joinder of 233 affected persons, except respondent No.3 (Shree Pal Singh). The petitioner argued that he had impleaded the immediate junior (respondent No.3) and that it was impractical to implead all 233 persons. He cited Supreme Court decisions in Prabodh Verma, V.P. Shrivastava, and A. Janardhana, which held that not all affected persons need to be joined if some are impleaded in a representative capacity, and that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to implead necessary parties.The respondents supported the Tribunal's decision, maintaining that the non-joinder of all affected persons justified the dismissal.The court concluded that the Tribunal should have given the petitioner an opportunity to implead the necessary parties or some in a representative capacity. The court noted that the petitioner had impleaded respondent No.3, who would represent the interests of similarly situated persons. The court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties.Conclusion:The court set aside the Tribunal's order, restored the petitioner's original application, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the case on merits. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.