Rajesh Kagra vs State of M. P. - 2010 Supreme(SC) 882

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 882

2010 (7) Supreme 1003
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli KR. Prasad, JJ.
Rajesh Kagra & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of M.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No.3009 of 2009
[Along With The Record of Slp(C) No. 25083/2009]
with
Sanjay Khande & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of M.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3029-3031 of 2009
R.L. Bhartiya — Petitioner(s)
versus
State of M.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30579 of 2009
Decided on : 17-9-2010

Headnote:Service Law-Special Leave Petition filed by petitioners against order passed by High Court in Writ Appeals which had been dismissed by a common order whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004 had been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had no locus standi to prefer appeals and while doing so, it had been observed that in case their rights in any manner were affected,they had to agitate the same by filing separate writ petition-Review application preferred against said order was also dismissed- As the petitioners did not claim seniority over them, and the writ-petitioners having admittedly senior to them, they were not necessary party- Direction to grant consequential benefits was dependent upon placement of writ petitioners in seniority list vis-a-vis respondents of the writ petitions-Petitioners did not claim seniority over either of them-The plea of the petitioners that the respondents of the writ petitions who had been held junior to the writ petitioners had 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 order of Single Judge- Held , writ petitioners coming in their way for further promotions could not be a ground to hold that petitioners had locus standi to challenge order of Single Judge deciding inter se seniority between two groups of Assistant Engineers over whom, petitioners did not claim any seniority- On the basis of seniority list, either writ petitioners would have got promotional post or the respondents but in no case petitioners would have legitimately claimed those posts-No error committed by High Court in holding that petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order and relegating them to the remedy of fresh petitions-Petitions dismissed. (Paras 8 to 11)
       Facts of the Case :
        Special Leave Petition was filed by petitioners herein in the instant case against order passed by High Court in Writ Appeals which had been dismissed by a common order whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004 had been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had no locus standi to prefer appeals and while doing so, it had been observed that in case their rights in any manner were affected,they had to agitate the same by filing separate writ petition.Review application preferred against said order was also dismissed.
       Findings of the Court :
        As the petitioners Did not claim seniority over them, and the writ-petitioners having admittedly senior to them, they were not necessary party. Direction to grant consequential benefits was dependent upon placement of writ petitioners in seniority list vis-a-vis respondents of the writ petitions.Petitioners did not claim seniority over either of them.The plea of the petitioners that the respondents of the writ petitions who had been held junior to the writ petitioners had 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 order of Single Judge. Held , writ petitioners coming in their way for further promotions could not be a ground to hold that petitioners had locus standi to challenge order of Single Judge deciding inter se seniority between two groups of Assistant Engineers over whom, petitioners did not claim any seniority.On the basis of seniority list, either writ petitioners would have got promotional post or the respondents but in no case petitioners would have legitimately claimed those posts.No error was committed by High Court in holding that petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order and relegating them to the remedy of fresh petitions.Petitions were dismissed.
       Result : Petitions dismissed.

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 31st 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. 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. Petitioners 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document