IMPORTANT POINT
The original petition was maintainable directly to the High Court at the instance of third parties. With all due respect to the Division Bench-Entertaining the original petition at the instance of third parties, was against the dictum laid down in Rajeev Kumar (supra) and Gireesh Babu (supra)-Both the Division Benches in S.Prabha (supra) and Rajesh (supra), if they were in disagreement with the judgment of the Division Bench in Gireesh Babu (supra) ought to have referred the matter to a Full Bench.

ORDER

T.R. RAVI, J.

By order dated 01.02.2018, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed 15 original applications relating to the selection for appointment to the post of Driver Grade-II (LDV) in various Departments of the Government. The 3rd applicant in O.A.No.753 of 2017, which was one of the cases dismissed by the common judgment, filed O.P.(KAT)No.87 of 2018, challenging the judgment; and the other applicants deserted their cause. ZIA 210 of 2018 was filed by one K.M.Haris and 4 others for getting themselves impleaded in the above original petition. The Registry noted a defect that a person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal cannot be a party in the O.P.(KAT). The petition was placed before the Division Bench dealing with the subject.

2. The counsel for the petitioners in the impleading petition contended that they were beneficiaries of the common judgment and that since the applicants in the cases in which they were parties have not challenged the order, they should be afforded the chance to defend the order of the Tribunal. On consideration of the judgments in Gireesh Babu v. Pavithran, reported in [2013 (3) KHC 165] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others reported in [2010 (4) SCC 554], the Division Bench was of the opinion that, even though the counsel for the petitioner in the original petition submitted that interference with the common order will directly and adversely affect the petitioners who seek to get impleaded, they cannot be permitted to come on record, in view of the above said judgments.

3. Heard Sri Varun C. Vijay on behalf of the impleading petitioners, Sri O.D.Sivadas on behalf of the petitioners in the original petition, Sri P.C.Sasidharan on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 in the original petition and Sri Antony Mukkath, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the 4th respondent in the original petition.

4. The question that needs to be answered is whether the decision in Gireesh Babu (supra) stands in the way of all persons who seek to get impleaded in a proceeding under Article 227, arising out of a decision of the Tribunal. They seek impleadment for the reason that they are affected or likely to be affected by the decision in the original petition or they are persons interested in the subject matter. Among the persons who seek impleadment in the case on hand, there are persons who were parties in one or other of the original applications which was considered along with O.A.No.753 of 2017 and dismissed by a common judgment, who were not parties to any proceedings before the Tribunal and persons like the petitioners in I.A.1294 of 2018, who were/are parties to other similar original applications before the Tribunal, which were not considered alongwith O.A.753/2017 and were separately disposed of or are still pending.

5. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India reported in [1997 (3) SCC 261] considered the power conferred on the Tribunals constituted under Articles 323-A and 323-B vis-a-vis the powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 93 and 99 of the judgment, the Bench categorically held that the Tribunals will function as the Court of first instance and it was not open to litigants to approach the High Courts directly. The relevant passages are extracted below.

“93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a D