The judgment highlighted the importance of considering correct service particulars and the rights of the petitioner as a necessary party in reaching a decision.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

The petitioner has sought direction in the name of respondents to command them to consider his case for promotion to the post of Junior Librarian from the date his junior Shri Jai krishan (respondent No. 4) was promoted alongwith all consequential benefits.

2. The admitted position is that the petitioner had been directly appointed as Library Assistant on 04.07.1986 whereas respondent No. 4 Shri Jai Krishan was initially appointed as Library Bearer in the year 1982 then had been promoted as Library Assistant in the year 1988.

3. While considering Shri Jai Krishan for next promotional post i.e Junior Librarian, his position of appointment as Library Assistant has been taken as 27.07.1982 when in fact he has been promoted to the post of Library Assistant in the year 1988. The seniority position for the next promotional post of Junior Librarian was to be taken as the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had in the feeding cadre i.e Library Assistant.

4. Petitioner noticing that his junior has been promoted had filed representation which had been accepted vide order dated 21.08.2000 as a result whereof it appears that the promotion of respondent No. 4 was cancelled and follow up order issued is dated 31.12.2000

5. The respondent No. 4 Shri Jai Krishan challenged the said cancellation order No. 6401-05 dated 13.12.2000 by medium of SWP No. 49/2001 titled Jai Krishan Sharma v. State wherein petitioner herein Fayaz Ahmed had not been arrayed as party. The said petition stands disposed of vide judgment dated 16.08.2001 wherein it has been observed that Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had considered the service particulars of both Shri Jai Krishan and Fayaz Ahmed. The DPC was within its jurisdiction to select the suitable person on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority and it is on the basis of proper consideration Shri Jai Krishan had been recommended by the DPC. As such junior has superseded the senior. The DPC's recommendation has been rightly followed by respondent No. 2 promoting Shri Jai Krishan. In the final analysis the order of cancellation has been quashed.

6. Petitioner herein Fayaz Ahmed admittedly was not arrayed as a party in the said disposed of writ petition. Whether that judgment dated 16.08.2001 will bind him has to be answered in negative. Such judgment when had effected the rights of the petitioner having been passed at his back has to be ignored vis-à-vis his rights.

7. The position of the petitioner herein Mr. Fayaz Ahmed being a necessary party is quite clear because his seniority position has been ignored and in the judgment his name is also referred to by saying that he being senior has been superseded. Therefore he could not be condemned unheard. In this view, I am fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht 2010 (4) Supreme 504. Para 7 is relevant to be quoted.

“7. In case the respondent No. 1 wanted her selection against the reserved category vacancy, the last selected candidate in that category was a necessary party and without impleading her, the writ petition could not have been entertained by the High Court in view of the law laid down by nearly a Constitution Bench of this Court in Udit Narian Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the Court has explained the distinction between necessary party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the Court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. More so, proviso to Order I, Rule IX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called CPC) provide that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC but the principles enshrined therein are ap