JASWANT SINGH LAMBA versus HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 06-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 877 
JASWANT SINGH LAMBA 
v 
HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 3323 of 2008 
MAY 6, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
. Article 226 -
Review petition by a third party filed 
belatedly - Maintainability of - Judgment in writ petition 
C 
allowing regularization of services of writ petitioners from date 
of their ad hoc appointment - Review petition belatedly filed 
by an employee who was not a party to writ petition - HELD: 
Not maintainable - Employee concerned was aware of the 
order of the High Court and consequent revised seniority list 
D 
- Order in writ petition became final as no appeal was preferred 
thereagainst - Locus standi - 'Necessary party'. 
Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a writ petition before 
the High Court claiming their seniority from 11.11.1982, 
the date of their ad hoc appointment. The writ petition was 
allowed by order dated 23.11.1992 and accordingly the 
revised seniority list was published showing respondents 
4 and 5 as senior to the appellant who was admittedly 
appointed on 3.10.1984. Since, the appellant was not a 
party to the writ petition filed by the two respondents, and 
his seniority was said to have been affected by the order 
passed by the High Court, he filed a review petition and 
on its dismissal, filed the instant appeal. 
E 
F 
It was contended for the appellant that the High Court G 
committed a serious error in passing the impugned 
judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that 
the appellant being not aware of the result of the petition 
filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 could not have moved 
877 
H 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 7 S.C.R. 
A the application for review and in that view of the matter 
the same should have been entertained. 
The question for consideration before the Court was: 
whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the 
case, the appellant can be said to have any locus standi to 
B file the application for review. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed 
in 1982. Their services, however, were regularized on a 
C later date. The question which arose for consideration 
before the High Court in the writ application was as to 
whether the respondent-University was right in 
appointing them on ad hoc basis although they were 
selected by a Select Committee constituted in terms of 
D the rules. The legality of the seniority list dated 18.4.1992 
was not in question therein. No relief therein was claimed 
-..; 
as against the appellant and he was, thus, not a necessary 
party. [para 8] [883-B, C] 
1.2 It cannot be said that the appellant did not have 
E knowledge of the proceedings. In the seniority list 
published on 14.5.1993, which was known to the 
appellant, respondent No.4, was shown at serial number 
12, respondent No.5 was shown at serial number 13 and 
the appellant was shown at serial number 17. The date of 
F joining of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was shown to be 
12.11.1982 and that of the appellant as 3.10.1984. Appellant 
.., 
and others filed a representation on 24.5.1993. Only 
grievance raised therein was as to whether degree of 
AMIE, should be considered. to be equivalent to the BE 
G degree. Respondent No. 4, in his counter affidavit, 
categorically stated that the order of the High Court dated 
23.11.1992 was brought to the knowledge of everybody 
including the appellants. It is also not in dispute that 
" 
respondent No.4 was granted the promotional scale. 
H Thus, only because a seniority list was again published 
JASWANT SINGH LAMBA v. HARYANAAGRICULTURAL 
879 
UNIVERSITY & ORS. 
in the year 2004 and the appellant filed representations A 
thereagainst, the same by itself could not be a ground for 
unsettling a settled position. [para 9-12) [884-8, G, H, A; 
885-C) 
1.3 Even otherwise, the application for review at the 
instance of the appellant was not maintainable. The order 8 
dated 23.11.1992 became final and binding as against the 
University. The University accepted the said judgment. No 
appeal was preferred thereagainst. The appellant who 
claimed himself to be senior to respondent No. 5, though 
not a party to the writ petition, could have preferred a C 
Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the 
High Court, but he chose not to do so for a long time. 
Appellant could not be permitted to contend in the review 
application that respondent Nos.4 and 5, in fact, h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.