Rajesh Kagra & Ors vs State Of M.P.& Ors

Supreme Court17 September 2010Chandramauli Kr. Prasad · Harjit Singh Bedi

SCC(2010) 12 SCC 139

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a party does not claim seniority over the parties to an earlier proceeding concerning the determination of inter se seniority in a service gradation list, that party lacks locus standi to appeal or challenge an order directing consequential benefits based on a correction of seniority as between those earlier parties, even though the party alleges that its own prospects for promotion have been affected. The circumstance that a party not originally joined in a seniority dispute may be disadvantaged by promotion of one group over another—whether because the promoted group remains in service or has retired—does not confer standing on that party to challenge the order determining seniority between the two groups when the challenging party itself does not claim seniority over either of them. A party alleging injury from consequential relief granted in an earlier proceeding must establish that it claims seniority over one or both of the parties whose seniority was at issue in that proceeding, or take a fresh remedy by separate petition rather than by appeal against the earlier order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.3009 of 2009

RAJESH KAGRA & ORS. .... PETITIONERSVERSUSSTATE OF M.P. & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS[ALONG WITH THE RECORD OF SLP(C) NO. 25083/2009]

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 3029-3031 OF 2009

SANJAY KHANDE & ORS. .... PETITIONERSVERSUSSTATE OF M.P. & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 30579 OF 2009

R.L. BHARTIYA .... PETITIONER(S)VERSUSSTATE OF M.P. & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1. Special Leave Petition(C) No. 3009 of 2009 has been

preferred against the order dated 31st July, 2008 passed in

Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2008. In Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.

3029-3031 of 2009, petitioners assail the order dated 31st2

July, 2008 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ

Appeal No. 350 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No. 356 of 2008. Writ

Appeal Nos. 350, 356 and 383 of 2008 have been dismissed by

a common order dated 31st July, 2008 whereby the appeals

preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 25th

February, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004 have

been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have no

locus standi to prefer appeals and while doing so, it has been

observed that in case their rights in any manner are affected,

they have to agitate the same by filing separate writ petition.

By order dated 5th September, 2008, passed in MCC No. 689 of

2008, the review application preferred against the aforesaid

order has been dismissed.

2. Writ Appeal No. 276 of 2009 has been dismissed by order

dated 13th August, 2009, relying on the judgment passed by

the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 350 of 2008, which has

been assailed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25083 of 2009.

As the validity of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 350 of

2008 is under consideration in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.3

3029-3031 of 2009, this petition will have the same fate as

those Special Leave Petitions.

3. Another Special Leave Petition(C) No. 30579 of 2009 has

been preferred against an interim order dated 11th November,

2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.

5203 of 2009 whereby the High Court while issuing notice

declined to grant any interim relief.

4. For the purpose of disposal of these petitions, we have

adverted to the pleadings in Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.

3029-3031 of 2009. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein filed the

writ petition; praying for correction of their position in the

gradation list of Assistant Engineers and after such correction

to promote them as Executive Engineers from the date their

juniors were promoted. These reliefs were sought for, inter

alia, on the ground that respondent nos. 3 to 7 of the writ

petition - respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein, were promoted from

Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers in excess of their

quota and therefore they are juniors to them. Petitioners4

herein are down below them in gradation list and undisputedly

juniors to both of them. The learned Single Judge by order

dated 25th February, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004

disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

"(1) That the respondents are directed to re-fix the placement of the petitioners in the gradation list of Assistant Engineers showing the position as on 01.4.2001 after considering the observations made by this Court and calculating the fact that at the time of absorption of Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers how many posts were sanctioned of Assistant Engineers and whether direct recruitees had a quota for promotion and if the department found that the Junior Engineers who were absorbed as Assistant Engineers they were in excess of the quota or their posts were not sanctioned by the department as Assistant Engineers, certainly they cannot be placed above the petitioners.

In such circumstances, the placement of the petitioners be modified accordingly;

(2) after modification in the placement of the petitioners in the gradation list of 2001, the petitioners are entitled for consequential relief of promotion etc. that may also be given to the petitioners;

(3) the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(4) No order as to costs."

5. The petitioners who were not party in the writ

petition and do not claim seniority over either the

petitioners or respondents of the writ petition having

entered into the service much later than both of them

challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge 5

in Writ Appeals on various grounds including the ground

that after long lapse of time, the High Court ought not to

have directed for preparation of fresh gradation list. By the

impugned order, the appeals have been dismissed on the

ground that they have no locus standi to prefer appeals and

while doing so, observed that in case their rights are

affected, they may file separate writ petition. An application

for review of the aforesaid order was filed which has also

been dismissed by order dated 5th September, 2008 passed

in M.C.C. No. 689 of 2008.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that

the direction to grant consequential benefits has directly

affected the petitioners and therefore the High Court erred

in holding that the petitioners have no locus standi to file

the appeals. Respondents, however, contend that the High

Court has rightly held that the petitioners have no locus 6

standi to file appeals and relegated them to the remedy of

fresh petition.

8. We do not find any substance in the submission

of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. As the petitioners

do not claim seniority over them, and the writ-petitioners

having admittedly senior to them, they were not necessary

party. Direction to grant consequential benefits is

dependent upon the placement of the writ petitioners in the

seniority list vis-a-vis the respondents of the writ petitions.

Petitioners herein do not claim seniority over either of them.

The plea of the petitioners that the respondents of the writ

petitions who have been held junior to the writ petitioners

have retired and the writ-petitioners still in service, hence

latter would not come in their way for further promotion

whereas the former would, is a fortuitous circumstance to

confer right on them to challenge the order of the learned

Single Judge. In our opinion, writ petitioners coming in

their way for further promotions could not be a ground to

hold that the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the 7

order of the learned Single Judge deciding inter se seniority

between two groups of Assistant Engineers over whom,

petitioners do not claim any seniority. On the basis of the

seniority list, either the writ petitioners would have got the

promotional post or the respondents herein but in no case

the petitioners herein would have legitimately claimed those

posts.

9. We are of the opinion that the High Court did not

err in holding that petitioners have no locus standi to

challenge the order and relegating them to the remedy of

fresh petitions. In case petitioners seek to take recourse to

the remedy of fresh petitions all the contentions raised

herein shall remain open.

10. Special Leave Petition(C) No. 30579 of 2009 is against

the issuance of notice and declining to pass interim order,

hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order at

this stage.

11. We dismiss all the petitions with the observations

aforesaid.

..................................................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

...................................................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, September 17, 2010.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free