Natural justice and vacancy-based promotion rules: non-impleaded Constables were not bound, and the amended rule governed later vacancies.

An order that adjudicates seniority and promotion rights of identifiable persons without impleading them is not binding on those affected Constables, because non-impleadment and lack of hearing amount to a breach of natural justice. Vacancies are governed by the rule in force when they arise, so the pre-amended Rule 13.7 did not confer a vested right on all Constables in service before the amendment; its benefit was limited to vacancies arising in the relevant interregnum, and the amended rule applied to later vacancies. The High Court's interference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 8.1.1990 could bind persons who were not impleaded though their seniority and promotion rights were directly affected; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that all Constables in service before the 17.6.1988 amendment had a vested right to be considered for the promotional course under the pre-amended Rule 13.7.

Issue (i): Whether the order dated 8.1.1990 could bind persons who were not impleaded though their seniority and promotion rights were directly affected.

Analysis: An order affecting identifiable persons who were not made parties does not bind them if their rights were adjudicated without hearing them. The affected Constables had already been selected, trained and promoted pursuant to the interim arrangement, and their seniority was directly altered by the later order. In such a situation, non-impleadment was not cured merely because they were aware of the litigation or because their appointment was made subject to the outcome of the proceedings. The order therefore suffered from violation of natural justice and could be ignored by them.

Conclusion: The order dated 8.1.1990 was not binding on the non-impleaded affected Constables.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that all Constables in service before the 17.6.1988 amendment had a vested right to be considered for the promotional course under the pre-amended Rule 13.7.

Analysis: The governing principle is that vacancies are regulated by the rules in force when the vacancies arise. The earlier Tribunal order correctly limited the benefit of the pre-amended rule to vacancies that had arisen during the relevant interregnum, while preserving the employer's right to apply the amended rule to later vacancies. The later order misread that decision and wrongly expanded it into a general vested right in favour of every confirmed Constable in service prior to the amendment. That approach ignored the distinction between accrued vacancies and future vacancies and was inconsistent with the settled rule that amendment governs subsequent vacancies.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was in treating every pre-amendment Constable as having a vested right under the old rule; the amendment applied to vacancies arising after its commencement.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was upheld, the challenge to the Tribunal's later order failed, and the revised seniority/promotion consequence drawn by the High Court was sustained to avoid grave injustice.

Ratio Decidendi: Vacancies are filled according to the rule in force on the date the vacancies arise, and an order affecting non-impleaded necessary parties is not binding on them.

---