K. AJIT BABU AND OTHERS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                        K. AJIT BABU AND OTHERS.
                                     v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                   JULY 25, 1997 .

B              [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.

           The Central Administrative Tribunal laid down norms which were
E
    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
      the basic principles of administration of justice is that the cases should
      be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of precedent is applicable to the
      Central Administrative Tribunal also. When even an application under
      section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is filed and the ques- H
    58                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tion involved in the said application stands concluded by some earlier
    decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has necessarily to take into account
    the judgment rendered in the earlier case, as a precedent and decide the
    application accordingly. The Tribunal may either agree with the view taken
    in the earlier judgment or it may dissent. If it dissents, then the matter
B   can be referred to a larger Bench/Full Bench and matter may be placed
    before the Chairman for constituting a Larger Bench so that there may be
    no conflict upon the two Benches. The larger Bench, then, has to consider
    the correctness of earlier decision in disposing of the later application. The
    larger Bench can over-rule the view taken in the earlier judgment and
    declare the law, which would be binding on all the Benches. In the present
C   case, the tribunal rejected the application of appellants thinking that
    appellants were seeking setting aside of the decision of the Tribunal. This
    view taken by the Tribunal was not correct. The application of the appel-
    lants was required to be decided in accordance with law. [62-B-F]

D       John Lucas v. Addi. Chief Mechanical Engineer, S.C. Rly., (1987) 3
    ATC 328 (Bang) (FB), referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3520 of
    1991.

E         From 'the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.90 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, New Bombay in Original Application No. 47 of 1990.
              '
         Chandan Ramamurthi, J.B. Ravi and M.A. Krishna Moorthy for the
    Appellants.

F        K.N. Shukla, Bairam Das, Y. Sharma and AK. Sharma for the
    Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G         V.N. KHARE, J. The short question that arises for consideration in
    this appeal is whether the application filed by the appellants under Section
    19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the
                                                                                     ...
    Act) could be rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal as not
    maintainable.

H           The facts giving rise to the question referred to above are these :
                            K.A. BABU v. U.O.I. [V.N. KHARE, J.)                  59

                The establishment of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is A
          divided into four separate zones, viz., eastern, western, southern and
          northern and the employee of each of the said zones have combined
          seniority list. The present appeal concerns the appellants working in the
          western zone which comprises the establishments at Bombay, Ahmedabad,
          Gandhidham, Rajkot, Bhopal and Goa. Each of the zone comprises of B
          posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper Division Clerks, Section Heads,
          controllers, etc (for short LDCs, UDCs, etc.) The LDCs are the lowest
          category from which the promotions are available to the post of UDCs,
_;   ..   from which promotion is made as Licensing Assistants and thereafter as
          Section Heads. From the post of Section Heads, the employees are eligible
          to be promoted to the post of Controllers. The seniority lists are main- C
          tained cadrewise. The promotion to the post of UDC is made on the basis
          of seniority roll, whereas promotion to Licensing Assistants, Section Head
          and Controllers are made on the basis of selection i.e. seniority-cum-merit.
          The appellant before us were appointed as LDCs. In due course they were
          promoted as UDCs, Licensing Assistants, Section Heads and Controllers. D
          As controllers they were promoted on ad hoc basis. They were working in
          the western zone which is headed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports
          and Exports. Subsequently, it was found that some of the officers who were
          promoted and were transferred in new offices were reluctant to join in the
          new place of posting and as such, since the year 1978 a policy was adopted
          for seeking options as to whether they are ready to go on transfer in case E
          they are promoted or they would like to stay at the place of present posting
          foregoing their promotions. The officers who have given their options to
          go out to new place of posting in case of promotion, they were given
          promotions in preference to the claims of their seniors.
                                                                                       F
                In the year 1983, one PS John and others who were affected by the
          seniority list published on 13.10.81 and were working at Ahmedabad filed
          a Civil Application No. 1533/83 before the Gujarat High Court making
          grievance that the respondents never asked for their options for going to
          the new place of posting in case of their promotions. The said application G
_J-       was transferred to the Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative
          Tribunal where it was numbered as Transfer Application No. 263/86. The
          Tribunal by its judgment dated August 14, 1987 held that the promotion
          made on the basis of options without resorting to the recruitment rules in
          terms of quota laid down and the procedure for filling it up is valid as long H
    60                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A as it is ad-hoc and such ad-hoc promotions do not deprive seniority of
    those who have not given their options for going out to the new place of
    posting. The Tribunal was further of the view that the employers are free
    to allow the juniors who have given their options to continue to enjoy
    promotion on ad-hoc basis, but the orders conferring regular promotions
B   to such promotee cannot be upheld in so far as it affects the seniority of
    those who have not given their options. The officers who have not given
    their options have the right to promotion in their own turn of seniority. In
    view of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal
    referred to above, the respondents prepared and circulated four draft
C   seniority lists inviting objections, if any. Subsequently, a number of review
    petitions were filed for reviewing the judgment given by the Tribunal in
    T.A. No. 263/86, but the said applications were rejected. After the review
    petitions were rejected, the present appellants filed an application under
    Section 19 of the Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat,
    at Ahmedabad. Relying upon a Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, in !hon
D   Lucas and Others v. Additional Chief Mechnical Engineer, decided on
    2.11.87, the Tribunal held that the persons who were not a party to a
    decision but are affected by the decision of the tribunal are not entitied to
    file an application under Section 19 of the Act, but can only file a review
    petition seeking review of the decision adversely affecting them.
E   Consequently the appellants' application was rejected summarily. The
    appellants have now come up to this Court.


          As stated earlier, the appellant has challenged the impugned
    seniority list prepared on the basis of the decision rendered by the Central
p   Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Transfer Application No. 263 of
    1986 dated 14.8.1987, by means of an application under Section 19 of the
    Act wherein there was no prayer for setting aside the judgment dated
    14.8.1987 of the Administrative Tribunal. It is true that the judgment given
    by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in T.A. No. 263/86
    would have come in the way of the appellant. Often in service matters the
G   judgments rendered either by the Tribunal or by the Court aiso affect other
    persons, "who are not parties to the cases. It may help one class of
    employees and at the same time adversely affect another class of
    employees. In such circumstances the judgments of the courts or the
    Tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam affecting only to the
H   parties to the cases, they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation,
                  K.A. BABU v. U.O.I. [V.N. KHARE, J.)                      61
the question arises; what remedy is available to such affected persons who        A
are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affect to
their rights in the matter of their seniority. In the present case, the view
taken by the Tribunal that the only remedy available to the affected persons
is to file a Review of the judgment which affects them ancl pot to file a
fresh application under Section 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act        B
empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter referred to as
"the Rules'') provides that no application for review shall be entertained
unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of review is available only to
those who are party to a case. However, even if we give wider meaning to          C
the expression "a person feeling aggrieved" occurring in Section 22 of the
Act whether such person aggrieve.d can seek review by opening the whole
case decided by the Tribunal. The right of review is not a right of appeal
where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is
possible only on limited groups, mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil       D
Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure may not be applicable to the Tribunals but the principles
contained therein surely have to be extended. 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 of review is
available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The    E
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 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.           F
Public policy demands that there should be end to law suits and if the view
of the Tribunals is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to
an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the
aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code
of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation.
                                                                                  G
      The Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant merely on the
ground that the appellant was seeking setting aside of the judgment
rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case
of P.S. John (supra) in T.A. No. 263/86. It is here that the Tribunal
apparently fell in error. No doubt the decision of the Tribunal in the case       H
    62                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A P.S. John was against the appellant but the application filed by the appel-
    lant under Section 19 of the Act has to be dealt with in accordance with
    law.

           Consistency, certainty and uniformity in the field of judicial decisions
    are considered to be the benefits arising out of the "Doctrine of Precedent".
B   The precedent sets a pattern upon which a future conduct may be based.
    One of the basic principles of administration of justice is, that the c~ses
    should. be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of precedent is applicable to
    the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Whenever an application under
    Section 19 of the Act is filed and the question involved in the said
C   application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the Tribunal, the
    Tribunal necessarily has to take into account the judgment rendered in
    earlier case, as a precedent and decide the application accordingly. The
    Tribunal may either agree with the view taken in the earlier judgment or
    it may dissent. If it dissents, then the matter can be referred to a larger
    Bench/full bench and place the matter before the Chairman for constituting
D   a larger bench so that there may be no conflict upon the two Benches. The
    larger Bench, then, has to consider the correctness of earlier decision in
    disposing of the later application. The larger Bench can over-rule the view
    taken in the earlier judgment and declare the law, which would be binding
    on all the Benches (See Jhon Lucas (supra). In the present case, what we
E   find is that the Tribunal rejected the application of the appellants thinking
    that appellants are seeking setting aside of the decision of the Tribunal in
    Transfer Application No. 263 of 1986. This view taken by the Tribunal was
    not correct. The application of the appellant was required to be decided
    in accordance with law.

F          For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Administrative Tribunal
    dated 14.8.1987 passed in O.A. No. 47 of 1990 is set aside and the case is
    sent back to the Tribunal for decision on merits preferably within three
    months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment. The appeal
    is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

G S.S.                                                           Appeal allowed.
                                                                                      .   """