STATE OF RAJASTHANversusUCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL

                        [2013] 12 S.C.R. 20


A                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                   v.
                    UCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL
               (Civil Appeal No. 9544 of 2013 etc.)

                        OCTOBER 22, 2013
B
            [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
H                                 20                          -.
      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
    22       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A
    (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.
B
                        Case Law Reference:

     1998 (3) SCR 782             cited            para 5

     2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 669      cited            para 6
c 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
D    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

E    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.

         Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, lrshad Ahmad for
    the Appellant.

         Sandhya Goswami, Santosh Mishra for the Respondent.
H
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL                       23
                 CHHANWAL
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                      A

    DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted in both the special
leave petitions.

     2. Regard being had to the identic issue involved in both
the appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by         B
a common judgment. For the sake of convenience the facts
from the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21202 of 2011
are adumbrated herein.

      3. The respondent was appointed in Rajasthan Police           c
Service (Junior Scale) after his selection through Rajasthan
Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") vid~
order dated 19.10.1989. As stipulated in Rajasthan Police
Service Rules, 1954 (for short "the Rules") the R.P.S. cadre is
divided into four categories and the lowest category is in the      0
junior scale. The persons from the junior Scale are promoted
to senior scale and thereafter to super time scale. The Rules
provide that the person who has six years experience in junior
 scale becomes eligible for consideration to senior scale. A
seniority list was published on 19.8.1997 wherein the name of       E
the respondent found place at serial number 51 in junior scale.
 In respect of vacancies in the promotional posts arising against
the quota of 1996-97 a Departmental Promotion Committee
 (DPC) was convened and on the basis of recommendations
 of the DPC persons junior to the respondent were promoted. It
 is apt to mention here that the criterion for promotion was        F
 seniority-cum-merit.

      4. Be it noted, the DPC though considered the case of the
respondent, yet his case was not recommended for promotion
for the vacancy occurring in 1996-97 as he was imposed with         G
the punishment of censure on 1.12.1992. However, he was
promoted thereafter in the year 1998. In this backdrop the
respondent approached the High Court by way of filing S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 6574 of 1997 for quashing of the penalty of
censure imposed on him on 1.12.1992 and further for setting         H
    24         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A aside the order dated 22.8.1997 whereby he had been
  superseded and his juniors had been promoted. A prayer was
  made for issue of a direction to consider his candidature for
  promotion to the post of senior scale in Rajasthan Police
  Service and, if he was found suitable, to promote him with all
B consequential benefits.

        5. The writ court vide order dated 5.3.2010 came to hold
  that the promotion of the respondent could not have been
  deferred as the seniority was required to be given more
  weightage over the merit as per the decision rendered in 8. V.
C Sivaiah and Others v. K. Addanki Babu and Others1• Being
  of this view the writ court allowed the writ petition and quashed
  the order dated 1.12.1992 as far as it denied promotion to the
  respondent to the senior scale against the vacancies of the year
  1996-97 and directed that he was entitled to promotion to the
D senior scale against the vacancy of the year 1996-97 with all
  consequential benefits.

       6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the State of
  Rajasthan preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 08449
E of 2010. In the appeal circular dated 26.7.2006 which sets out
  certain guidelines relating to the types of punishments and their
  impact/effect on promotion of a personnel as per which the
  respondent was found unfit to be promoted was pressed into
  service. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated
F 11.11.2010 placing reliance on B. V. Sivaiah (supra) and K.
  Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2 and the decisions
  of the High Court of Rajasthan in Shankar Lal Balai v. State
    of Rajasthan and Others 3 , Satyamani Tiwari v. State of
    Rajasthan and Others' and various other pronouncements of
G the High Court came to hold that the circular dated 26.7.2006

    1.   (1998) s sec 120.
    2.   (2004) 9 sec 286.
    3.   2009 (Raj.) unreported cases page 777.
H   4.   S.B.C.W.P.No. 2878/2003 decided on 11.8.2006.
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL                      25
          CHHANWAL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

was not applicable as the controversy relating to promotion A
pertained to the year 1996-97. The High Court further observed
that in case of promotion based on seniority-cum-merit the
person who had been inflicted with the penalty of censure which
is a minor penalty, cannot be denied promotion without being
considered and, in any case, it could not have taken into B
consideration in respect of the year 1996-97. Being of this view
the Division Bench affirmed the order passed by the learned
single Judge.

      7. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel C
appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, Ms. Sandhya
Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent in appeal arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21202 of 2011, and Mr. Santosh Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondent in appeal arising out of
S.L.P. (C) No. 21201 of 2011.
                                                                   D
      8. It is submitted by Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel
for the appellant, that though the respondent was entitled to be
considered for promotion but the principle relating to seniority-
cum-merit would come into play when he is compared with
other persons and in that event the punishment of censure has E
to be taken note of. It is his further contention that the
punishment does not stand wiped off unless the Rules/
instructions so provide. The learned counsel for the State has
criticized the approach of the writ court and that of the Division
 Bench on the ground that there has been incorrect appreciation F
of facts and the view expressed ignoring the distinction
 between consideration for promotion and suitability for
 promotion is legally unsustainable.

     9. Learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals
submitted that censure which is a minor punishment cannot be      G
an impediment for the entire service career and it has to be
restricted to a specified period of time and when there is
consideration on the base of seniority-cum-merit, seniority has
to be given due weightage. For the aforesaid purpose they
pressed into service the decisions which have been relied         H
    26       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [20'13] 12 S.C.R.


A   upon by the High Court. It is also canvassed by them that the
    High Court has correctly opined that the circular cannot be
    made applicable retrospectively having been issued in the year
    2006 to a promotional matter pertaining to the year 1996-97.

B       10. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the finding
    recorded by the High Court pertaining to the circular is
    absolutely correct and unassailable. The said circular could not
    have been placed reliance upon by the State to contend that
    the respondents could have been deprived of promotion.
C   However, the said circular is totally inconsequential for the
    present case, for what we are going to hold.

          11. Though some argument was canvassed with regard
    to the relevance of the punishment of censure, yet the said
    aspect need not be adverted to. On a perusal of the writ
D   petition, the order of the writ court and that of the Division Bench
    we notice that there were specific averments that juniors placed
    at serial numbers 9, 10 and 11 in gradation list had been
    promoted vide order dated 20.8.1997. They have not been
    arrayed as parties. Needless to emphasize, in the event the
E   order passed by the High Court is affirmed, the persons who
    are seniors to the respondents in the promotional cadre are
    bound to become junior regard being had to their seniority
    position in the feeder cadre. It is well settled in law that no order
    can be passed behind the back of the person that shall
F   adversely affect him. In this context, we may refer with profit to
    the decision in Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others v. Union of India
    and Others5 wherein it has been held thus: -
         "Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before
         the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and
G        others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over
         the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have
         been conferred the benefit of promotion to th.e higher posts.
         In their absence, if any direction is issue!d for fixation of

H s. (2012) 1 sec s10.
        STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL                         27
            CHHANWAL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they A
      have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult
      to grant."

     12. After so stating this Court referred to the decision in
lndu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. 6 wherein it has been held         8
thus: -

      "56. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants
      herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed
      by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could
      not have determined the question of inter se seniority."         C

     13. In Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bishf this
Court while dealing with the concept of necessary parties and
the effect of non-impleadment of such a party in the matter when
the selection process is assailed observed thus: (SCC pp. 207-         o
08, paras 9-10)

      "9 .... in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of
      Revenue 8 , wherein the Court has explained the distinction
      between necessary party, proper party and pro forma
      party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer E
      from the order of the court and has not been impleaded
      as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has
      been passed in violation cif the principles of natural justice.
      More so, proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil
      Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC') provides that F
      non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly,
      provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by
      virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC but the
      principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide
       Gulabchand Chhotala/ Parikh v. State of Gujarat•,                G
 6.   (2006) 8 sc.c 129.
 1.   (2010) 12 sec 204.
 8.   AIR 1963 SC 786.
 9.   AIR 1965 SC 1153.                                                 H
    28       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (20'3] 12 S.C.R.


A        Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot10
         and Sarguja Transport Service v. STA T1 1.)

         10. In Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. 12 ancf Tridip Kumar
    Dingal v. State of WB. 13, it has been held that if a person
8   challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at
    least some of them are necessary parties."

         14. In J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another14
    it has been held as follows:-

c        "No order can be passed behind the back of a person
         adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is
         liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as
         the same has been passed in violation of the principles
         of natural justice."        '
D
        15. In the case at hand the dispute relates to promotion
  which will have impact on inter se seniority. The learneacounsel
  for the respondents assiduously endeavoured to convince us
  that they are agitating the grievance with rngard to their .
  promotion and it has nothing to do with the persons junior to
E them who had been promoted. Despite the indefatigable effort,
  we are not persuaded to accept the aforesaid proponement,
  for once the respondents are promoted, the juniors who have
  been promoted earlier would become juniors in the promotional
  cadre, and they being not arrayed as parties in the lis, an
F 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 the directions issued by the writ court
  as well as the Division bench pertaining to grant of promotion
  to the respondents are quashed. To elaborate, as far as the
G
    10. (1974) 2 sec 706.
    11. (1987) 1 sec 5.
    12. (1984) 4 sec 251.
    13. (2009) 1 sec 768.
H   14. (2011) s sec 570.
       STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. UCCHAB LAL                      29
           CHHANWAL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

conclusion of the High Court relating the circular 1~ concerned,   A
it is unexceptionable and we concur with the same.

     16. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part and the
order passed by the Division Bench as well as by the writ court
is set aside to the extent directions have been issued granting 8
benefit of promotion to the respondents. In the facts and
                                                               1
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs

R.P.                                   Appeals partly aliowed.