Settled seniority positions cannot be disturbed due to significant delays and absence of necessary parties in appeals concerning promotions.

.....Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. B. Pujari, B.K. Nayak, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. B. Samantaray, Counsel O R D E R SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):

The gist of the matter is that the applicant submitted representation on 01.12.2017 praying inter alia to implement the OFB’s Order dated 25.01.2011, 05.08.2011 and 11.12.2012 by way of giving him promotion to HS-II in comparison to his juniors, who were promoted vide FO Part-III No. 269 dated 29.04.2011 and No. 29 dated 20.01.2012 against the reservation percentage with all consequential benefits. He has also raised a grievance Sl. No. 02 dated 12.01.2018 to the above extent. The said grievance was considered and rejected vide letter dated 23.02.2018. Thereafter, promotion was given to 125 industrial employees to DBW/HSG-II vide Office Order No. 932 dated 07.03.2018; after which the applicant has filed this OA on 07.09.2018 praying inter alia to direct the respondents (Resp. No.3) to revise the list of promotion to HSG-II grade strictly in terms of Board’s direction based on the seniority list of Danger Building Workers (Skilled) existed on 01.01.2010, i.e. prior to restructuring of the cadre, by quashing the order dated 23.02.2018 and 07.03.2018.

2. Respondents filed counter objecting the very maintainability of this OA on the ground of delay and laches so also non-joinder of necessary parties as also merit of the matter. The applicant has also filed rejoinder.

3. By reiterating the averments made in the pleadings, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has prayed for the relief claimed in the OA and the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of this OA. After considering the submission of the parties, perused the records and the law in the field.

4. In the case of Khetrabasi Biswal Vs. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Others, 2004 SCC (L&S) 182, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the procedural law as well as the substantive law both mandate that in the absence of a necessary party, the order passed is a nullity and does not have a binding effect.

5. In the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board of Revenue , 1963 AIR 786, Hon’ble Apex Court held that it would be against all principles of natural justice to make an order adversely affecting the interest of an employee and, therefore, before any adverse order is made, the party whose interest is going to be affected adversely by such order must be arraigned as party to the case. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also rejected the prayer for rehearing of the matter by adding the affected person as party on the ground that such prayer being belated one cannot be allowed.

6. Effect of non-impleadment of necessary parties was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India and others , (2012) 7 SCC 610, wherein the well-settled position of declining relief to the petitioners when the effected parties were not impleaded was reiterated:

"36.Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others ,(2014) 16 SCC 187, again highlighted the necessity of impleading the persons who would be affected as a result of the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant relief to the petitioners on acc