They were also given liberty to file affidavits.
Apart from those three persons, Ramesh Chandani and K.K. Shukla were also applicants in O.A. No.
The C.A.T. in its judgment dated 15.12.2006 held that O.A. No.1097/06 was without merit and dismissed the same and O.A. No.1137/06 was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to companyvene the meeting of D.P.C. Selection Committee to fill up the posts which ultimately remain unfulfilled in 2001, 2002 and 2004 and to companysider all eligible SCS Officers in the zone of companysideration in the respective years including the Officers who were put in the select list of those years but companyld number be appointed in the absence of integrity certificate.
However, while answering the objection on their locus standi, the appellants referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others 1997 3 SCC 261 and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placitum f g of the report and companytended that in view of the law declared in Chandra Kumar supra , they can companye before the High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of C.A.T. as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were number parties to the proceedings in which the said judgment was rendered.
At the outset of their arguments this Court wanted learned companynsel for the appellants to satisfy this Court about their locus to participate in the companytroversy at the stage when the matter was before the High Court in view of the fact that admittedly these appellants were number parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter, C.A.T. Before the C.A.T. there were three applicants namely, Hemraj Singh Chauhan, Anwarul Haque and Ram Nawal Singh who were companymon both in O.A. No.1097/06 and O.A. No.1137/06.
The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are that they were number made parties in proceedings before the Tribunal.
After the High Court passed its impugned judgment dated 14.11.08 they have filed these appeals assailing the said judgment.
The appellants in these appeals are Non State Civil Service Officers hereinafter referred to as the Non SCS Officers .
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
Both the original applications were heard together.
Pursuant to the said order of the Honble High Court, these appellants filed affidavits.
They filed an impleadment application in the Delhi High Court for being impleaded as respondents in Writ Petition No.19103 04 of 2008 filed by Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others before the High Court whereupon the High Court by an order dated 23rd April 2008 allowed them to intervene and further allowed them to make submissions at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
But in the impleadment application filed before the High Court it was number averred by them that they were number aware of the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal.
The C.A.T. directed that the said order be companyplied within the period of four months.
However, on the said judgment being challenged before the High Court by Hemraj Singh Chauhan, the High Court set aside the judgment of the A.T. and the Central Government and the State Government were directed to undertake the cadre reviewing exercise with reference to the vacancy position as on 1st January 2004 in the manner indicated in the High Court judgment within eight weeks from date.
