LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus UCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 12 S.C.R. 20 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL (Civil Appeal No. 9544 of 2013 etc.) OCTOBER 22, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: C Promotion - Challenged before High Court in w1it petition - Persons junior to respondents, but promoted, not arrayed as parties in writ petition filed by respondents - W1it petition allowed by High Court - Held: Once respondents are promoted, the persons who have been promoted earlier would 0 become juniors in the promotional cadre, and they being not arrayed as parties in the /is, an adw~rse order cannot be passed against them as that would go against the basic tenet of principles of natural justice -- On this singular ground, judgments of single Judge and Division Bench of High Court E are set aside - However, the finding of High Court holding that circular dated 26. 7. 2006 was not applicable as the controversy relating to promotion pertained to the year 1996-97, is. unexceptionable and is concurred with - Service law - Government of Rajasthan Circular dated 26. 7.2006 - F Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954. Party - Non-joinder of affected party - Effect ol'. The writ petition of the respondent in C.A. No.9544 of 2013 challenging the order dated 1.12.1992 awarding G him punishment of censure and on that basis denying him promotion by order dated 22.8.1997 was allowed by ·single Judge of the High Court who quashed the order dated 1.12.1992 and held that the writ petitioner was entitled to promotion to the senior scale. The Division 20 H -. STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL 21 CHHANWAL Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed A by the department. Allowing the appeals in part, the Court HELD: 1.1 The dispute relates to promotion which will have impact on inter se seniority. There were specific B averments in the writ petition that juniors placed at serial numbers 9, 10 and 11 in gradation list had been promoted by order dated 20.8.1997. [para 11 and 15] [26-D-E; 28-D] 1.2 Once the respondents are promoted, the persons c who have been promoted earlier would become juniors in the promotional cadre, and they being not arrayed as parties in the lis, an adverse order cannot be passed against them, as that would go against the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice. On this singular ground, 0 the orders of the writ court as well as the Division Bench pertaining to grant of promotion to the respondents are set aside. [para 15-16] [28-E-G; 29-B] Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others v. Union of India and Others 2012 (6) SCR 128 = 2012 (7) SCC 610 lndu Shekhar E Singh v. State of U.P. 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 497 = 2006 (8) SCC 129; Public SeNice Commission v. Mamta Bisht 2010 (7) SCR 289 = 2010 (12) SCC 204; J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2011 (5) SCR 460 = 2011 (6) SCC 570 - relied on. F 2. As far as the conclusion of the High Court that the circular dated 26.7.2006 was not applicable as the controversy relating to promotion pertained to the year 1996-97, it rs unexceptionable and is concurred with. G [para 6 and 15] [24-G; 25-A; 29-A] B. V. Sivaiah and Others v. K. Addanki Babu and Others 1998 (3) SCR 782 = 1998 (6) SCC 720; K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 669 = 2004 H A B c D E 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 12 S.C.R. (9) SCC 286; Shankar Lal Balai v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2009 (Raj.) unreported cases page 777, Satyamani Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan and Others S.B.C.W.P.No. 2878/ 2003 decided on 11.8.2006 - cited. Case Law Reference: 1998 (3) SCR 782 cited para 5 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 669 cited para 6 2009 (Raj.) unreported cited para 6 cases page 777 S.B.C.W.P.No. 2878/2003 decided on 11.8.2006 cited para 6 2012 (6) SCR 128 relied on para 11 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 497 relied on para 12 2010 (7) SCR 289 relied on para 13 2011 (5) SCR 460 relied on para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil AppE!al No. 9544 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2010 of the F High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 08449 of 2010 in S.S. Civil Writ Petition No. 6574 of 1997. WITH G C.A. No. 9545 of 2013. H Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, lrshad Ahmad for the Appellant. Sandhya Goswami, Santosh Mishra for the Respondent. STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL The Judgment of the Court was delive
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.