Whether employer should advise employees about service rules?

The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court granted the relief
to respondent No. 4 on the ground that the department ought to
have informed and/or advised the employee with respect to the
seniority to be fixed on the basis of rotaquota
rule and as the

department failed to do so, respondent No. 4 cannot be denied
his legitimate right to be placed at an appropriate place in the
seniority list, as otherwise also he was selected for a promotion in
the LDCE quota also. On the aforesaid terms, the learned
Tribunal as well as the High Court are not justified in directing to
put respondent No. 4 in the seniority list above the appellant
who, in fact, was appointed in the LDCE quota and the
respondent No. 4 never accepted his promotion in the LDCE
quota. It was for the employee to know the rule. The department
was not expected to advise and/or tell the employee about how
the seniority will be fixed and/or about the rotaquota
rule.
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7779 OF 2012

P. Subramaniyam Vs Union of India


M. R. Shah, J.
Dated:March 15, 2019.

Print Page

Who are necessary parties while deciding question of seniority of employee?

Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the
tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Singh 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 asparties such a relief is difficult to grant. In this context we may
refer with profit to the decision in Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors.
v. State of U.P. & Ors.AIR 2006 SC 2432 wherein 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.”
29. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta
Bisht & Ors.AIR 2010 SC 2613
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: -
“7. ……. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v.
Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar &
Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the Court has
explained the distinction between necessary
party, proper party and proforma 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 I, Rule IX of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter called CPC) provide that nonjoinder
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 thereinare applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal
Parikh v. State of Gujarat; AIR 1965 SC 1153;
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal, Khodidas

Barat & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 2105; and Sarguja
Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 88).
8. In Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Ors. AIR 1985 SC 167; and Tridip Kumar Dingal
& Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2009) 1
SCC 768 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 824), it has been
held that if a person challenges the selection
process, successful candidates or at least some of
them are necessary parties.”
30. From the aforesaid enunciation of law there cannot be any
trace of doubt that an affected party has to be impleaded so that

the doctrine of audi alteram partem is not put into any hazard.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4986-4989 OF 2007
Vijay Kumar Kaul and others 
V
Union of India and others 
Dated:May 25, 2012
 Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

What will be effect if employee makes delay in making claim for seniority?

 From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is manifest
that a litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of a court for claiming
seniority, it is obligatory on his part to come to the court at the
earliest or at least within a reasonable span of time. The belated
approach is impermissible as in the meantime interest of third
parties gets ripened and further interference after enormous
delay is likely to usher in a state of anarchy.
 The acts done during the interregnum are to be kept in
mind and should not be lightly brushed aside. It becomes an
obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or
injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground
of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at
one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into
total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the
passage of time.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4986-4989 OF 2007
Vijay Kumar Kaul and others 
Versus
Union of India and others 
Dated:May 25, 2012
 Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page