IMPORTANT POINT
When ever an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is filed it has to be decided in accordance with law and can not be dismissed on ground that applicant was seeking setting aside of judgment of tribunal to which he was not a party and that he could ask for its review.

Headnote:Service Law-Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985- Section 19-Application challenging seniority list published by Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in terms of decision rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal dismissed application holding that persons who were not a party to decision but were affected by it were not entitled to file application u/s 19 of the Act but could file review-Tribunal fell in error on premise that appellant was seeking setting aside of judgment rendered by Tribunal-Doctrine of precedent-Application of appellant was required to be decided in accordance with law. (Paras 5 & 6)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

An application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act must be decided in accordance with law and cannot be dismissed solely because the applicant was seeking to set aside a tribunal judgment to which they were not a party, but rather a review may be sought (!) .
The scope of remedies available to persons affected by tribunal decisions, even if not parties to the case, includes the possibility of seeking review rather than a direct application under Section 19, especially when the decision impacts their rights or interests (!) .
The right of review is limited and can only be exercised on specific grounds and within prescribed time limits; it is not an appeal that re-examines all questions decided in the original case (!) .
Decisions of tribunals that affect persons not directly involved as parties may be considered in rem, and affected persons should pursue review mechanisms rather than fresh applications under Section 19 (!) .
The tribunal's refusal to entertain an application on the basis that it sought to set aside a judgment rather than challenge the decision on merits was in error; applications under Section 19 must be considered on their legal merits (!) .
The doctrine of precedent applies to tribunal decisions, emphasizing the importance of consistent and uniform application of law, and requiring tribunals to follow or distinguish earlier decisions appropriately (!) .
When an application under Section 19 is filed, the tribunal must consider it based on legal principles and not dismiss it solely because it appears to challenge or seek to set aside previous tribunal judgments (!) .
The case was remanded for a proper decision on the merits, emphasizing that tribunal orders should be reviewed or appealed in accordance with law, not dismissed on procedural grounds that misinterpret the nature of the application (!) .

Let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT

V.N. Khare, J.-The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the application filed by the appellants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) could be rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal as not maintainable.

2. The facts giving rise to the question referred to above are these :-

The establishment of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is divided into four separate zones, viz., eastern, western, southern and northern and the employee of each of the said zones have combined seniority list. The present appeal concerns the appellants working in the western zone which comprises the establishments at Bombay, Ahmedabad, Gandhidham, Rajkot, Bhopal and Goa. Each of the zone comprises of posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper Division Clerks, Section Heads, Controllers etc (for short LDCs, UDCs, etc.). The LDCs are the lowest category from which the promotions are available to the post of UDCs, from which promotion is made as Licensing Assistants and thereafter as Section Heads. From the post of Section Heads, the employees are eligible to be promoted to the post of Controllers. The seniority lists are maintained cadrewise. The promotion to the post of UDC is made on the basis of seniority roll, whereas promotion to Licensing Assistants, Section Head and Controllers are made on the basis of selection i.e. seniority-cum-merit. The appellant before us were appointed as LDCs. In due course they were promoted as UDCs, Licensing Assistants, Section Heads and Controllers. As Controllers they were promoted on ad-hoc basis. They were working in the western zone which is headed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Subsequently, it was found that some of the officers who were promoted and were transferred in new offices were reluctant to join in the new place of posting and as such, since the year 1978 a policy was adopted for seeking options as to whether they are ready to go on transfer in case they are promoted or they would like to stay at the place of present posting foregoing their promotions. The officers who have given their options to go out to new place of posting in case of promotion, they were given promotions in preference to the claims of their seniors.

3. In the year 1983, one PS Jhon and others who were affected by the seniority list published on 13.10.81 and were working at Ahmedabad filed a Civil Application No. 1533/83 before the Gujarat High Court making grievance that the respondents never asked for their options for going to the new place of posting in case of their promotions. The said application was transferred to the Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal where it was numbered as Transfer Application No. 263/86. The Tribunal by its judgment dated August 14, 1987 held that the promotion made on the basis of options without resorting to the recruitment rules in terms of quota laid down and the procedure for filling it up is valid as long as it is ad-hoc and such ad-hoc promotions do not deprive seniority of those who have not given their options for going out to the new place of posting. The tribunal was further of the view that the employers are free to allow the juniors who have given their options to continue to enjoy promotion on ad-hoc basis, but the orders conferring regular promotions to such promotee cannot be upheld in so far as it effects the seniority of those who have not given their options. The officers who have not given their options have the right to promotion in their own turn of seniority. In view of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal referred to above, the respondents prepared and circulated four draft seniority lists inviting objections, if any. Subsequently, a number of review petitions were filed for reviewing the judgment given by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 263/86, but the said applications were rejected. After the review petitions wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document