Impleading necessary parties in cases challenging the selection process is crucial, and failure to provide evidence to support a claim can result in dismissal of the petition.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

By medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the petition filed (O.A.No.1387-HP-2013) was dismissed.

2. The facts as set out in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.3 on 20.08.2002 as Lower Division Clerk on contract basis. The respondent-department on 11.12.2012 invited applications for the purpose of appointment of three posts of Lower Division Clerk for which the petitioner also applied. However, his case was rejected on the ground of his being overage. When the contract of the petitioner was not being renewed, he filed writ petition bearing CWP No.6124 of 2012 which ultimately was withdrawn by him on 18.09.2013 with liberty to approach a competent authority. The petitioner thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the Tribunal too dismissed the petition.

3. The petitioner has not cared to place on record the copy of the petition (original application) whereby it could be inferred as to what exactly were the reliefs and the grounds taken in such application. But, insofar as the present petition is concerned, the petitioner has sought regularization of his services and for quashing the order passed by the Tribunal and has further prayed for directions for reinstatement since his services have been terminated in compliance to the impugned order of the Tribunal.

4. In response to petition, respondents No.3 and 4 have filed their reply wherein it has been averred that the petitioner cannot claim regularization as per the regularization policy framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh since the employees of the Institution are governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Central Government. It is further averred that since the petitioner was overage, his case could not be considered for regularization. As per the advertisement, the maximum age limit was 28 years as on 01.07.2011 and the petitioner admittedly was more than 28 years on the cut-off date. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

5. Ms.Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the age relaxation is prescribed in the Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices (in short ‘Manual’) wherein the age relaxation has been granted to all those casual labourers for absorption in the regular establishment in Group-D. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered this and rendered a finding thereupon.

6. We cannot agree with such submissions. In absence of the original application filed before the Tribunal, we are not in a position to ascertain as to whether this ground was infact taken before the Tribunal. Nonetheless, even in case the present petition is perused, then nowhere in the entire petition has the petitioner made a whisper regarding the applicability of these rules so as to afford a fair chance to the respondents to rebut the same.

7. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the question of relaxation of age was not dealt with by the Tribunal is not supported by the record because the Tribunal in para-10 of its judgment has categorically held as follows:-

“…..In so far as relaxation in age is concerned, the relevant selections have not even been called in question by the applicants nor any relief has been claimed in that regard….”

8. No exception can be taken to this finding of the Tribunal because it cannot be disputed that the selected candidates are necessary parties as they would be only ones, who would be directly affected by the outcome of this litigation. It is also equally settled that no adverse order can be passed against a person, who is not made party to the litigation.

9. In Prabodh Verma and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 1985 SC 167 and Tridip Kumar Dingal versus State of West Bengal and others (2009) 1 SCC 768, it has been held that