LexH.C. KULWANT SINGH & ORS. versus H.C. DAYA RAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014) 11 S.C.R. 1053 · H.C, KULWANT SINGH & ORS. v. H.C. DAYA RAM & ORS. · (Civil Appeal No. 5859 of 2014) JUNE 30, 2014 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: A B Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - r. 13. 7, 13. 8 - Promotion c of Constables to the rank of Head Constables - Rules pertaining to eligibility criteria for promotion changed by first amended Rules - Said Rules again changed by _.second amended Rules - Constables to be governed by first amended Rules or second amended Rules - Held: On facts, D the vacancies occurring during the period 4.3.1982 till 17.6.1988 are to be governed by the amended rule that came into force on 4.3.1982 and the vacancies occurring after 17.6.1988 amendment, are to be governed by the Rule as amended by the notification dated 17.6.1988 - The latter . E decision which completely misread the earlier decision and erroneously observed that every confirmed employee had a vested right, is unsustainable - Tribunal did not appreciate that the right was restricted to the accrued vacancies - It was open to the department to take steps in accordance. with the amended Rule in respect of vacancies to the post" of Head F Constables which might have accrued SL!bsequent to the coming into force of the amended Rules which may fall vacant thereafter - If that order is allowed to reign it would have disastrous impact on justice and would tantamount to miscarriage of justice - High Court rightly quashed the said G order - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142. Practice and procedure - Necessary party - Non- impleadment - Effect of - Held: When by the determination 1053 H .A B 1054 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. "' of the tribunal the rights of the parties had squarely been affectf;d, the situation commanded that they should have been impleaded being necessary parties - Non-impleadment permit!$ them to take the plea that the said order does not bind them - Plea. · Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The tribunal in Achhar Chand's case, . which was decided on 27.6.1988, had strictly gone by the principles stated in Y. V. Rangaiah by directing to prepare C a fresh list of Constables for sending to Lower School Course in accordance with the pre-amended Rule as far as vacancies of Head Constables which had come into existence prior to notification dated 17 .6.1988. It had further clarified that it is open to the respondent to act in D accordance with the amended Rule in respect of the vacancies/posts of Head Co'nstables which may have occurred subsequent to coming into force of the amended Rule. [Para 33] [1086-E-G] E· 1.2. The real cause of grievance arose for the respondents on 23.9.1998 and on that ground the High Court repelled the submission of delay and laches. The facet of non-impleadment_ has two limbs. First, the mere awareness of pendency of litigation because it is F mentioned "subject to decision in Original Application" does not make the order binding upon them and the second, by the time the judgment dated 8.1.1990 was pronounced ail the respondent were sent for Lower School Course and promoted and, therefore, they were clearly identified as the ultimately affected parties and G hence, were necessary parties for the purpose of adjudication of the lis. [Para 39] [1089-8-E] • 1.3. In the instant case, the authorities did not accept the order ·but challenged the same before this Court and . H • H.C. KULWANT SINGH v. H.C. DAYA RAM 1055 this Court disposed of the same in '1996 by observing A that as the respondents therein had already completed their training, the SLP has been rendered infructuous. However, this Court chose not to decide the lis. The factual matrix would reveal that the authorities acted in accordance with the earlier order of the tribunal and fixed B the seniority. That was the grievance which was agitated by the appellants before the tribunal wherein the order was passed on 23.9.1998. Had the respondents been made parties to the original application in the second round, which gave rise to the order dated 8.1.1990, they c could have been in a position to assert about the legal position and faced their fate, making themselves liable to challenge the order .. After they appeared in the competitive examination and selected being more meritorious, indubitably they were an identified category. 0 It was not a vague or unidentified body. When by the determin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.