JASWANT SINGH LAMBAversusHARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.

                      [2008] 7 S.C.R. 877


                 JASWANT SINGH LAMBA                                A
                               v
     HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.
            Civil Appeal No. 3323 of 2008
                         MAY 6, 2008
                                                                    B
    (S.B. SINHA AND MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)

     Constitution of India, 1950:
    . 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         E
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        F
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.
      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, had rightly
been appointed on ad hoc basis, as he was not a                    D
necessary party in the writ petition filed by the said
respondents. Seniority, as is well known, is not a
fundamental right. It is merely a civil right. The High Court
was right in concluding that the review application was
not maintainable. [para 13-17] [885-D, E, F; 886-A-C]              E
     J. Jose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC
587; R. Su/ochana Devi v. D.M. Sujatha & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC
335 - held inapplicable.
    CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.               F
3323 of 2008.
     From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2005 of
the High Court of Pubjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Review
Application No. 82 of 2005 in CWP No. 9879 of 1990.
                                                                   G
     Ma nu Mridul, Pranav Vyas and Surya Kant for the Appellant.
     Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Rishi Malhotra and
Sanjay Jain for the Respondents. , 11
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   H
    880         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 7 S.C.R.


A         S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. Appellant herein is aggrieved by a judgment and order
    dated 19.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana, dismissing a review petition seeking review of the
    judgment dated on 23.11.1992.
8
          The review of the said judgment was sought for by the
    appellant, inter alia, on the premise that the decision of the High
    Court, allowing a writ petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5
    resulted in loss of his seniority. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were
c   appointed as Sectional Officers on an ad hoc basis on or about
    11.11.1982. Respondent No.4 was appointed on a temporary
    post on 27 .9.1984, whereas the appellant was appointed on
    5.10.1984. Respondent No.5 is said to have been appointed
    on a temporary post by an order dated 7.6.1985. In a seniority
    list published on 23.12.1987, their seniority was shown from
0
    the date of their regular appointment. The said respondents,
    however, contended that as they were appointed in terms of the
    recruitment rules against permanent vacancies, they had wrongly
    been appointed on an ad hoc basis on and from 11.11.1982.
E        Their representation that they were entitled to be appointed
    with effect from 11.11.1982 on a regular basis was rejected.
    They filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana on 2.6.1990, praying, inter alia, for the following
    reliefs:
F         "(a) a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued
               in favour of the petitioners and against the
               respondents, quashing the impugned Annexure P/9.
          (b)   a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued
                in favour of the petitioners and respondents to grant
G
                benefit of ad hoc services towards fixation of the
                seniority of the petitioners and to refix their seniority
                after counting their ad hoc service.
          (c)   a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued
H               in favour of the petitioners and against the
     JASWANT SINGH LAMBA v. HARYANAAGRICULTURAL                        881
           UNIVERSITY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

                respondents, directing the respondents to fix pay of A
                the petitioners after taking into consideration their
                ad hoc service towards grant of increments etc. and
                to release their arrears along with interest@ Rs.180
                per annum."

           3. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court by         B
     an order dated 23.11.1992 directing that the said respondents
     shall be deemed to be in the service of the respondent on a
     regular basis from the date of their initial appointment, holding :

          "After considering the entire matter, the contention of the         c
          learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be
          rejected. Undisputedly, the petitioners were initially
          appointed after they had been selected by a Committee
          with effect from November 11, 1982 and they had been
          continuously working as such without any break till they
                                                                              D
          were appointed on regular basis. Though the services of
          the petitioner No.1 stood terminated by serving him a notice
          dated November 11, 1983, yet he has not relieved and
          was allowed to continue on the post after he gave an
          undertaking that in case extension is not granted, he will
          not claim any salary etc. Later on, he was granted extension        E
          of another six months by order dated December 2, 1983.
          Therefore, there is no break in his service even till his
          regular appointment."
           4. Allegedly, a seniority list was published on 18.4.1992          F
     wherein the appellant was shown as ~enior to the respondent
     No.5 being at serial No.16 and respondent No.5 was shown as
     junior to him being placed at serial No.18. However, another
     seniority list was published on 20.5.2004 wherein they were
     shown as senior to the appellant. Appellant filed representations
                                                                              G
     thereagainst, inter alia, on 29.5.2004 and 24.8.2004. The said
     representations were rejected by an order dated 1.1 .2005,
     stating :
"'        "It is intimated that your representation for fixing of seniority
          as Junior Engineer above Shri A.K. Agarwal, J.E. has                H
    882       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2008) 7 S.C.R.


A         been considered and rejected in the light of the decision
          of the Hon'ble Pb. & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ
          Petition No.9879 of 1990 dated 23.11.1992 on the basis
          of which Sh. A.K. Aggarwal has been treated to be joined
          on regular basis from the date of his joining on ad hoc
B         basis.
          This also disposes of your all representations on the above
          subject."

          The review application was filed thereafter in January 2005.

C       Respondent No.4 was appointed on temporary post
  before appellant and was also shown senior to appellant in
  seniority lists dated 23.12.1987 and 18.4.1992. Thus, the
  appellant could have grievance only against Respondent No.5,
  if any, who was appointed on temporary post later to the
D appellant and was also shown junior in the abovementioned list.
        5. Mr. Manu Mridul, learned counsel appearing on behalf
  of the appellant, would submit that the High Court committed a
  serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it
E 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 the application for review and in that
  view of the matter the same should have been entertained. There
  having been no time prescribed for filing a review application, it
  was permissible in law for the appellant to file the same
F immediately after coming to know of the order, which has civil
  consequences.
       6. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
  respondent No.4 and Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on
G behalf of respondent No.5, on the other hand, took us through
  various documents to contend that the appellant had the
  knowledge about the judgment and order dated 23.11.1992.
        7. The principal question which arises for consideration
  herein is as to whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances
H of this case, the appellant can be said to have any locus standi
               JASWANT SINGH LAMBA v. HARYANAAGRICULTURAL                      883
                     UNIVERSITY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
       ~

               to file the application for review of the said judgment dated          A
               23.11.1992.
                      8. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed in 1982. Their
                services, however, were regularized on a later date. The question
                which arose for consideration before the High Court in the said
              · writ application was as to whether the respondent-University          B
....   ...
 '              was right in appointing them on an ad hoc basis although they
                were selected by a Select Committee constituted in terms of
                the rules.

                     No relief therein was claimed as against the appellant. The
               legality of the seniority list dated 18.4.1992 was not in question
                                                                                      c
               therein. Appellant was, thus, not a necessary .Party; no relief
               having been claimed against him. Respondent-University was
               directed to consider their regular appointment with effect from
               11.11.1982. The seniority list was required to be revised keeping
                                                                                      D
       ';ti
               in view the aforementioned directions of the High Court. A fresh
               seniority list was prepared pursuant to the said order. Publication
               of the seniority list was merely consequential to the order of the
               High Court.
                    9. Even otherwise, the order of the High Court appears to         E
               be known to the appellant herein.

                    By an order dated 13.5.1993, an office order was issued
               informing all concerned including the Chief Engineer that the
               respondent No 5 would be treated to have been appointed on a
               regular basis w.e.f. 11.11.1982. It is difficult to believe that the   F
       ~       departments where only 18 Sectional Officers were working
               including Civil and Electrical Engineering Department, the
               appellant would not have the knowledge thereabout.
                    In the seniority list published on 14.5.1993, N .S. Yadav,
                                                                                      G
               respondent No.4, was shown at serial number 12; A.K.
               Aggarwal, respondent No.5, was shown at serial number 13
        ,,.    and the appellant was shown at serial number 17. Therein the
               date of joining etc. had categorically been stated, from a perusal
               whereof it would be evident that whereas 12.11.1982 was shown
                                                                                      H
    884       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 7 S.C.R.


A   to be the date of joining of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, so far
    as the appellant is concerned, his date of joining was shown as
    3.10.1984.
         10. Appellant and others filed a representation on
    24.5.1993; paragraphs 2 and 3 whereof reads as under :
B
          "It is further .learnt that seniority list of Jr. Engineers is   )..
                                                                                 )I
          being disturbed through various manipulations under the
          promotion quota. The Selection Committee has already
          met and submitted its recommendations. Under the garb
c         of these recomme'ldations, the administration is trying to
          accommodate out of turn Sh. N.S. Yadav, who is an AMIE
          holder and is junior to at least 11 Jr. Engineers. He is
          being consideret"~ for the above promotion on the plea
          that a degree holder is required. Such an out of turn
          promotion is violative, as per statutory provision.
D
          It will not be out of place to mention here that the Haryana
          Govt. does not consider AMIE equivalent to degree (BE)
          holder for design purpose as has been clarified in another
          case of the employee of the university. Moreover for
E         promotion seniority is the only criteria and even for direct
          recruitment a person with AMIE is not eligible. Hence in
          view of the existing rules, for the promotion of Sh. N.S.
          Yadav would amount to violation of rules and open to legal
          litigation."
F       11. The subject matter of the grievances was as to why
  respondent No.4 who was placed at serial No.12 should be                  ~


  considered for the promotional scale despite he being junior to
  eleven persons. Evidently, the seniority list was known to them.
  Only grievance raised therein as to whether degree of AMIE,
G held by him should be considered to be equivalent to the BE
  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
  stating :
H
1



               JASWANT SINGH LAMBA v. HARYANAAGRICULTURAL                      885
                     UNIVERSITY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
       .....
                     "The said fact of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 having been         A
                     accorded seniority over and above the petitioner was again
                     brought to the knowledge of the petitioner and other
                     officers when the said respondents were granted
                     promotional scales vide order dated 27 .01.1996 issued
                     by the respondent No.1 herein. The said order dated              B
       •             27 .01.1996 issued by the respondent No.1 is also placed
                     on record by the respondent No.5 as Annexure R-5/13."

                    12. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.4 was
               granted the promotional scale.
                                                                                      c
                    Thus, only because a seniority list was again published in
               the year 2004 and the appellant filed representations
               thereagainst, the same by itself could not be a ground for
               unsettling a settled position.
                     13. Even otherwise, the application for review at the            D
       r       instance of the appellant was not maintainable. The order dated
               23.11.1992 became final and binding as against the University.
               The University accepted the said judgment. No appeal was
               preferred thereagainst. Appellant and others who claimed
               themselves to be seniors to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could have         E
               preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of
               the High Court, but they chose not to do so for a long time.
                     14. Appellant could not be permitted to contend in the
               review application that respondent Nos.4 and 5, in fact, had
               rightly been appointed on an ad hoc basis, as he was not a             F
      .,       necessary party in the writ petition filed by the said respondents.
                      15. Mr. Mridul has relied upon a decision of this Court in J.
               Jose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas & Ors. [(1996) 3 SCC 587]. We
               fail to understand as to how the said decision is applicable. In
                                                                                      G
               that case, without impleading Thomas as a party, his
               appointment was annulled. It was in that context, the court opined
'·'
      ~        that he was a necessary party.
                    R. Sulochana Devi v. D.M. Sujatha & Ors. [(2005) 9 SCC
               335] whereupon again reliance has been placed was a case               H
    886       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 7 S.C.R.
                                                                           :>
A where inter se seniority was in question. The seniority list was
  prepared without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected
  employees. There was no dispute that the appellant therein was
  senior to the first respondent and was entitled to hold the pot of
  Principal of the college. The power of RJD to review was in
B question.  Such a question does not arise herein.
                                                                           ...
          16. Appellant was also not a proper party in the writ petition
    filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Seniority, as is well known, is
    not a fundamental right. It is merely a civil right.

c         17. For the reasons aforementioned, the High Court, in
    our opinion, was right in concluding that the review application
    was not maintainable. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. There
    shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                 '
    R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           '(




                                                                                 "
                                                                                 j