K. AJIT BABU AND OTHERS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 25-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K. AJIT BABU AND OTHERS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 1997 . 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.) 
Service Law : Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Sections 19 and 
22(3)(f}-Application filed under section 19 rejected by CAT-Party getting 
adversely affected by decision though not party to actual decision-Whether 
C could file application under S.19-Held : Yes-Doctrine of Precedent ap-
plicable to the decisions of CAT-Judgment rendered in earlier cases to guide 
future conduct-Matters to be referred to larger Benches or full Benches in 
case of disagreement. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 47-f?.eview-Scope vis-a-vis 
D section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act-Held : Review is no right of 
appeal-Grounds contained in Order 47 extended to right of review under 
section 22 of the Act-f?.ight of review only available to aggiieved on restricted 
ground within the period of limitation. 
E 
The Central Administrative Tribunal laid down norms which were 
to govern the seniority of the employees of a particular organisation. In 
the light of the said judgment certain seniority lists were drawn and 
objections were invited. A number of review petitions were filed against 
this judgment, but all the said applications were rejected. Then the appel-
lants filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals 
F Act, 1985 before the Central. Administrative Tribunal. Relying on a full 
Bench decision of the Tribunal it was held that the persons who were not 
party to a decbion but are only affected by it are not entitled to file an 
application under section 19 of the Act, but can only file a review of the 
decision adversely affecting them. Consequently, appellants's application 
G was rejected. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Often in service matters the judgments rendered either 
by the Tribunal or by the Court also affect other persons, who are not 
H parties to the cases. It may help one class of employees and at the same 
56 
K.A. BABU v. U.O.I. 
57 
time adversely affect another class of eniployees. In such circumstances A 
the judgments of the Courts on· the Tribunals may not be strictly judg-
·:_ 
ments in personam affecting only the parties to the cases; they would be 
judgments in rem. In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal was 
that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to seek review of 
the judgment which. affects them and not to file fresh application under B 
section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,.1985. (60-G-H; 61-A-B] 
2. Ordinarily, the right of review is available only to those who are 
party to a case. However, even if a wide meaning is given to the expression 
"a person feeling aggrieved" occurring in section 22 of the Administrative 
Tribunals Act, whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening C 
the whole case has to be decided by the Tribunal. The right to review is 
not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. 
The right to review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in 
Order 47, C.P.C. Although strictly speaking Order 47 C.P.C. may not.be 
applicable to the Tribunals but the principles contained therein surely D 
have to be ell.1ended to them. Otherwise, there being no limitation on the 
power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of 
finality of a decision. Besides that, the right to review is available if such 
an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given 
by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If 
such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision E 
would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling 
adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision 
has been given can not monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy 
demands that there should be an end to law suits and if the view of the 
Tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. F 
Therefore, a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on 
restricted ground mentioned in Or·der 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
if filed within the period of limitation. [ 61-C-G] 
3. Consistency, certainty and uniformity iu the field of judicial G 
decisions are the benefits arising out of the Doctrine of Precedent. The 
precedent sets a pattern upon which future conduct may be based. One of

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