MUKUL MUDGAL, J.(ORAL)

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 28th March, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1658/1996. The impugned judgment is largely based upon the dismissal of the O.A. filed by the petitioner for non-joinder of the parties. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it has been held that the result of the O.A. would affect the seniority of the persons at serial No. 438 to 588 in the seniority list and accordingly their non-joinder was fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raju submits that he did not and is not claiming any relief against any of these persons and this makes the judgment of the Tribunal totally flawed.

3. The position of law in respect of non-joinder of the parties in service matters is to be found in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.f. Shrivastava & Ors. vs. The State of M.P. & Ors., JT 1996(2) S.C. 374 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up the position of law as follows:-

"14. The conclusion of the Tribunal that on inclusion of the affected parties is fatal to the appellants case is also unsustainable in law. It is to be stated that the appellants do not challenge the so called ad-hoc appointments of the promotee respondents but they do challenge the position of the said ad-hoc promotee respondents over the appellants in the seniority list. In other words the very principle of 'determination of seniority' made by the State Government is under challenge and for such a case State is the necessary party who has been impleaded. It has been held by this Court in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway Secundrabad & Anr etc. v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and Ors. etc., (1974) 3 S.C.R. 207 :

"As regards the second objection, it is to be noted that the decision of the Railway Board impugned in the writ petition contain administrative rules of general application, regulating absorption in permanent departments, fixation of seniority, pay etc. of the employees of the erstwhile Grain Shop departments. The Respondents-petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. in the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list or order fixing seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals pursuant to the impugned decisions, is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the petitioner's seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Board's decision of October 16, 1952 were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition."

15. In the case of A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India and others, 1983(2) S.C.R. 936, a similar contention was also repelled by this Court in the following words:

"In this case, appellant does not claim seniority over particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing-up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Go