RANJAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF BIHAR .
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,M.Y. EQBAL
Case number: C.A. No.-004455-004458 / 2009
Diary number: 6260 / 2004
Advocates: BRAJ KISHORE MISHRA Vs
DEBASIS MISRA
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4455-4458 OF 2009
Ranjan Kumar etc. etc. ... Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4459-4462, 4463-4466, 4471-4474, 4467-4470, 4477-4480 AND 4475-4476 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
In these appeals, assail is to the judgment and order
dated 19.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna in a batch of letters patent appeals whereby the
Division Bench has concurred with the opinion expressed
by the learned Single Judge wherein he had quashed the
Page 2
appointment of a number of appointees in respect of the
post, namely, Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) on the
ground that the procedure adopted for selection was
vitiated as the candidates were selected only by interview
without holding any written test though the past practice
was to conduct an examination and thereafter hold
interview for selection; that the interview was held in a
hurried manner; and that the posts being technical in
nature, holding of an examination was warranted.
2. We need not state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say
that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the
concerned department of the State Government, 182
persons were appointed on the post of MLT. The writ
petitioners who participated in the interview could not be
selected as they obtained lesser marks than the
successful candidates. Their failure necessitated them to
knock at the doors of the High Court and the learned
Single Judge, as has been stated hereinbefore, accepting
the grounds put forth, quashed the selection.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants have raised two
principal contentions, first, most of the appellants herein
2
Page 3
were not impleaded as respondents before the High Court
and without taking note of the said aspect the High Court
has invalidated the selection and nullified their
appointments which is violative of the principles of natural
justice; and second, all the private respondents who were
writ petitioners before the High Court having participated
in the interview which was the procedure adopted, could
not have challenged the said process in a court of law
because of their failure, for the same is not permissible in
law.
4. On a perusal of the orders impugned, we find that
only 40 persons were made respondents before the High
Court and hardly a few appointees filed applications for
intervention. It is well settled in law that no adverse order
can be passed against persons who were not made parties
to the litigation. In this context, we may refer with profit
to the authority in Prabodh Verma and others v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others1, wherein a three-Judge
Bench was dealing with the constitutional validity of two
Uttar Pradesh Ordinances which had been struck down by
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the 1 (1984) 4 SCC 251
3
Page 4
ground that the provisions therein were violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. In that
context, a question arose whether the termination of the
services of the appellants and the petitioners therein as
secondary school teachers and intermediate college
lecturers following upon the High Court judgment was
valid without making the said appointees as parties.
Learned Judges observed that the writ petition filed by the
Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable,
defects; the core defect was that of non-joinder of
necessary parties, for respondents to the Sangh’s petition
were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers
and those who were vitally concerned, namely, the
reserve pool teachers, were not made parties — not even
by joining some of them in a representative capacity,
considering that their number was too large for all of them
to be joined individually as respondents. Thereafter the
Court ruled thus: -
“The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents
4
Page 5
in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh’s writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.”
5. In the case at hand neither any rule nor regulation
was challenged. In fact, we have been apprised that at
the time of selection and appointment there was no rule
or regulation. A procedure used to be adopted by the
administrative instructions. That apart, it was not a large
body of appointees but only 182 appointees. Quite apart
from that the persons who were impleaded, were not
treated to be in the representative capacity. In this
regard, it is profitable to refer to some authorities. In
Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
others2 it has been held thus: -
“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.”
2 (2006) 8 SCC 129
5
Page 6
6. In Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service
Commission and others3, after referring to Prabodh
Verma (supra) and Indu Shekhar Singh (supra), the
Court took note of the fact that when no steps had been
taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure or the principles analogous thereto all the
seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in
the writ petition. It was further observed that the number
of selected candidates was not many and there was no
difficulty for the appellant to implead them as parties in
the proceeding. Ultimately, the Court held that when all
the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties to
the writ petition, no relief could be granted to the
appellant therein.
7. In Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of
West Bengal and others4, this Court approved the view
expressed by the tribunal which had opined that for
absence of selected and appointed candidates and
without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the
selection could not be set aside.
3 (2006) 12 SCC 724 4 (2009) 1 SCC 768
6
Page 7
8. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v.
Mamta Bisht and others5 this Court, while dealing with
the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non-
implementation of such a party in the matter when the
selection process is assailed, observed thus: -
“....in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue6, 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 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 of the principles of natural justice. More so, proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'Code of Civil Procedure') provides that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 Code of Civil Procedure but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat7, Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot8 and Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT9)”
9. In J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another10 it has been held that no order can be passed
behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and 5 (2010) 12 SCC 204 6 AIR 1963 SC 786 7 AIR 1965 SC 1153 8 (1974) 2 SCC 706 9 (1987) 1 SCC 5 10 (2011) 6 SCC 570
7
Page 8
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. It was further
held that the litigant has to ensure that the necessary
party is before the Court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant,
otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In service
jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the
selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of
the successful candidates in representative capacity.
10. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors.11 it has been ruled thus:
“Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and 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 the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant.”
11. Recently in State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal
Chhanwal12, it has been opined that: -
“Despite the indefatigable effort, we are not persuaded to accept the aforesaid
11 (2012) 7 SCC 610 12 (2014) 1 SCC 144
8
Page 9
preponement, 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 adverse order cannot be passed against them as that would go against the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice.”
12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are
disposed to think that in such a case when all the
appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was
defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to
the writ petitioners.
13. The next submission which has been presented
before us is that when the respondents had appeared in
the interview knowing fully well the process, they could
not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying
that the procedure as adopted by the department was
vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the
principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh
Kumar Shukla and others13, in the said case a three-
Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the petitioner in
the writ petition had appeared for the examination
without protest and filed the petition only after he
realized that he would not succeed in the examination,
13 1986 (Supp) SCC 285
9
Page 10
held that the writ petitioner should not have been granted
any relief by the High Court.
14. In this context, we may quote a passage from
Madan Lal v. State of J & K14 with profit: -
“It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.”
15. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v.
Shakuntala Shukla and others15, the Court observed
as follows: -
“34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of
14 (1995) 3 SCC 486 15 (2002) 6 SCC 127
10
Page 11
interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.”
16. In Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar &
Ors.16, the Court reiterated the principle that it is also
well settled that those candidates who had taken part in
the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid
down therein were not entitled to question the same.
17. Thus, the twin contentions proponed by the learned
counsel for the appellant deserve acceptation and,
accordingly, we allow the appeals and, ex consequenti,
the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in
the batch of appeals and the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2130 of 1999
are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
…………….……………….J. [Dipak Misra]
….………………………….J. [M.Y. Eqbal]
New Delhi; April 16, 2014.
16 AIR 2008 SC 5
11
Page 12
12