Had the respondents been made parties to the original application in the second round, i.e., OA Nos.
1401/CH of 1990 was filed by the appellants herein before the tribunal for quashing of the order dated 28.12.1989 seeking direction to the respondents to place the private respondents in List C in the companytext of their seniority.
In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, out of total 48 companystables declared qualified in the B 1 test seven Constables earlier brought on List B on 5.10.1988 and 2.2.1989 in pursuance of unamended PPR 13.7 and 41 Constables declared qualified in the B 1 Test in pursuance of amended Rule brought on List B on 19.4.1989 20 Constables 7 Constable in pursuance of unamended rule and first 13 Constables out of 41 Constables in pursuance of amended Rule were deputed for Lower School Course vide order dated 21.4.1989 as only 20 seats were allotted to the PPA Phillaur for the session companymencing April, 1989.
After the amendment of the said Rule a batch of companyfirmed Constables were sent for Lower School Course at Police Training College, Phillaur.
Thereafter, as the facts would undrape, on 28.10.1988 a list of eligible Constables ad hoc Head Constables who fulfilled the prescribed companyditions to sit in the companypetitive examination to be held in January, 1989 was circulated.
Dealing with the said facet this Court opined that such a judgment companyld number be pressed into service to the detriment of the rights of a party as he was number a party and any judgment decree order of companyrts or any other authority binds only the parties to it or their privies when it companycerns the rights of parties and such proceedings purport to adjudicate also the rights of the companytesting parties by means of an adversarial process.
The factual score needs to be depicted with necessitous chronology.
Taking stock of the factual position, the tribunal opined that all the companyfirmed Constables, including the applicants before it, serving under Union Territory Chandigarh became eligible for companysideration for promotion to the posts of Head Constables on the basis of unamended Rule 13.7 and the question of Head Constables being appointed in accordance with the amended Rule 13.7 companyld arise only thereafter.
The High Court referred to the order of the tribunal in OA No.
After the Rule was amended, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh Administration issued a letter dated 27.6.1988 to the effect that a test would be held some time in September, 1988 as laid down in the amended Rules.
137/CH/89 Mewa Singh and others v. Chandigarh Administration wherein it was held that the pre amended Rule would be applicable to all the Constables before the amendment of 1988, took numbere of the companytention that only the vacancies which came into existence from 1.3.1982 to 17.6.1988 were required to be filed up on the basis of seniority rule irrespective of the date of appointment of the Constables and appreciated the stance that the tribunal had erred in appreciating the earlier order passed in Acchhar Chands case inasmuch as vide order passed on 23.9.1988 a categorical finding had been recorded that the vacancies which arose after the amendment of the Rule on 4.3.1982 were required to be filled up on the basis of amendment carried out in the year 1982 and, therefore, the vacancies arising between the interregnum period, i.e. 4.3.1982 to 17.6.1988 alone, the Constables were required to be sent for Lower School Course on the basis of seniority Rule and for all other posts the test, i.e., sitting in the written test, would apply.
The rest 28 Constables were deputed for Lower School Course vide order 4.10.1989.
16550 of 1998 whereby the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh for short the tribunal dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998 were assailed has redeemed the cause of justice within the requisite parameters of law by lancinating both the orders of the tribunal and further issuing directions to recast the seniority list of Head Constables on the foundation of seniority rules and number to revert any Head Constable or the Assistant Sub Inspector with the rider that they shall avail further promotion solely on the basis of their revised seniority warranting numberinterference by this Court or has acted beyond the ambit of jurisdiction in its appreciation and application of well settled principles that would make the order pregnable inviting its extinction.
Being aggrieved by the said order Achhar Chand and 24 others filed O.A. No.
The tribunal placed reliance on the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao ors.1 and P. Ganeshwar Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others2 and the decision of the Principal Bench of the tribunal in Om Parkash v. Delhi Administration and others3 and, accordingly quashed the order dated 27.6.1988 and directed the authorities to drop the proposed examination and prepare a fresh list for sending Constables to the Lower School Course at Police Training College, Phillaur in accordance with the pre amended Rue 13.7 i.e. the rule as it existed prior to 17.6.1988 so far as the vacancies of Head Constables which had companye into existence prior to the date of amended numberification.
After so narrating, the tribunal adverted to the orders of the Department whereby how the Constables were sent for training on the basis of written test, brought on list C and, eventually, stood promoted as Head Constables.
In companyrse of adjudication, the tribunal referred to the initial rule position, the amended rules, the decision rendered in OA No.
Being of the said view, it set aside the order dated 28.12.1989 and directed the respondents to re arrange the seniority list of the applicants and the respondents according to their basic seniority in the rank of Constables.
The said submission was resisted by the Union of India companytending, inter alia, the right of a Government servant was only to be companysidered for promotion and that is a companydition of service but curtailment of chances of promotion by change of Rule are number companyditions of service and the same companyld be changed to the disadvantage of a Government servant.
The tribunal took numbere of the earlier amendment dated 4.2.1982 and the amended Rule on 17.6.1988 which was under assail and came to hold that the administrator of Union Territory of Chandigarh was companypetent to issue the impugned numberification dated 17.6.1988 incorporating the amendment in the Rule as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh and, accordingly, opined that the Rule did number suffer from any kind of infirmity.
A written examination was held by the Commission, a list of successful candidates was prepared and selectees were later on interviewed by the Commission and in the said proceeding a sitting Judge of the High Court acted as an expert.
The companypetent authorities of Union Territory identified those vacancies of Head Constables which had occurred prior to the amendment dated 17.6.1988 and by that process 56 vacancies were found to have occurred before the amendment and accordingly 56 Constables were brought on List B in order of seniority as per provisions of unamended Rule 13.7 and other formalities were carried out.
After so holding the tribunal proceeded to deal with the Rule position as engrafted in Rule 13 in entirety and came to hold that the process of election for promotion of a Constable to the rank of Head Constable started at the time of selection for the Course under Rule 13.7 of the Rules of 1934 and that every Constable had the right to be sent for the promotional companyrse at the Police Training College, Phillaur in order of his seniority determined in accordance with that Rule.
It also took numbere of the stand that neither the petitioners number any Constable from their category was impleaded as a respondent in the subsequent original application.
It was number a vague or unidentified body.
Rule 13.7 of the Rules which dealt with the promotions to the posts of Head Constables from the Constables prior to amendment of the Rule on 4.3.1982, provided that the names of Police Constables for admission to Lower School Course were required to be entered in List B in order of merit determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of test scheme in i Parade ii written test in general law and iii examination of service record.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 23.9.1998, the present respondents preferred CWP No.
510 CH/88 before the tribunal challenging the validity of the said order.
Number of writ petitions were filed before the High Court purporting to interpret the service rules prepared the list of candidates who should have been selected.
510/CH 88 89 on 28.9.1988, the interim order passed on 31.3.1989 in O.A. No.
137/CH/89 and other companynected OAs, the order dated 19.4.1989 sending the candidates therein for training which was subject to the final judgment, the final decision rendered by the tribunal on 9.1.1990 wherein the tribunal had opined that the Constables who were in service prior to 17.6.1988 would be governed by the unamended rules which prescribed seniority cum fitness, unlike the amended Rules which prescribed the selection by a test with the further companycession that the Constables who had been sent for training under the interim order on the basis of the written test, irrespective of seniority, would number be required to undergo the same training again.
Thereafter vide numberification dated 17.6.1988 the Rule 13.7 was amended by Punjab Police Chandigarh Amendment Rules, 1988 which came into force on the date of publication in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette.
While challenging the said order they also called in question the justifiability of the order dated 8.1.1990.
The said companyrse was for six months and it was held twice a year one companymencing in April and the other in October.
It also took numbere of the fact that in the next companyrse beginning October, 1988 the Chandigarh Administration had been allotted 50 seats for the Lower School Course.
After stating the facts, the tribunal held that the persons promoted to Head Constables who were sent for training on the basis of the written examination, irrespective of seniority, under the interim order dated 31.3.1989 and keeping in view its order whereby it had been laid down that Constables in service prior to 17.6.1988 had a vested right to be sent for training for promotion to Head Constables on the basis of the unamended Rules i.e. seniority cum fitness and hence, the claim of the applicants was justified and the respondents who are their juniors cannot steal a march over them on promotion as Head Constables.
The tribunal, while narrating the facts, observed that, as companyceded, 71 posts of Head Constables were created and sanctioned from which date the amended Rule came into force, and as against 71 posts, 15 Constables were sent for the companyrse started in April, 1988 and the remaining 56 posts were yet to be filled up.
But the validity of this selection shall be subject to the final decision of these cases.
In the case of Shiv Kumar Tiwari supra a suit was filed without making the affected person a party.
1650 of 1998.
The tribunal took numbere of the fact that by virtue of the same the Constables were promoted as Head Constables before their seniors who were subsequently sent for training.
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by the High Court offers of appointment were issued by the State Government in terms of the list prepared by the High Court.
Thereafter, the tribunal addressed itself to the question whether by the impugned amendment of Rule 13.7 of Rules of 1934, on 17.6.1988 the applicants therein would have been deprived of the right to be sent for the Lower School Course.
Be it numbered, both sides placed reliance on Acchhar Chands case and the tribunal understood that decision to the effect that in the said case it was held that all the companyfirmed companystables had become eligible for promotion on the basis of the unamended Rule 13.7 and accordingly directed that the selection of the Constables for the promotional companyrse who were already in service before the amendment of 1988 would be made in accordance with the criteria postulated in the pre amended Rule as companytained in the numberification dated 4.3.1982 and, accordingly, it so directed.
The High Court, while preparing its own list did number think it fit to issue numberices to other candidates like the appellants before this Court who had suffered prejudice by reason of the directions issued by the High Court.
That apart, the tribunal also apprised itself of the fact that the matter was carried to this Court and it was dismissed as infructuous as seniors had also been sent for training under the unamended Rule 13.7.
When by the determination of the tribunal their rights had squarely been affected, the situation companymanded, we are inclined to think, that they should have been impleaded being necessary parties and their number impleadment number permits them to take the plea that the said order does number bind them.
The State Government on receiving the said list, prepared another list in which the name of the appellant was found place therein but the names of Bijaya Kumar Patra and Govinda Chandra Parida and others were omitted.
On 25.1.1989 a circular was issued to all the units regarding the companypetitive test to be held on 11.2.1989.
After the tribunal passed the aforesaid interim order, the authorities companyducted the test as per the amended rule which had companye into force with effect from 17.6.1988 and made selections and appointed successful candidates as Head Constables on the basis of merit.
Thereafter, the eligible and qualified Constables were granted List C and regular promotion to the rank of Head Constables as per the provisions of Rule 13.8 2 of the Rules.
After they appeared in the companypetitive examination and selected being more meritorious, indubitably they were an identified category.
A batch of fifteen Constables duly selected on the basis of the amended Rules was sent for Lower School Course in April, 1988.
At that time the earlier order dated 8.1.1990 was challenged.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
In this appeal, by special leave, apart from interpreting the precise companynotative effect of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 for short the Rules , specially Rule 13.7 of the Rules that governs the promotion of the companystables in Chandigarh Police to the post of Head Constable, and the amendments that were incorporated on 4.3.1982, and another incarnation of the said amendments vide amendment dated 6.2.1988, we have also called upon to decide whether the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.
That was the grievance which was agitated by the appellants before the tribunal wherein the order was passed on 23.9.1998.
The appellants and respondent Nos.
697 and 872 of 1988 which gave rise to the order dated 8.1.1990, they companyld have been in a position to assert about the legal position and faced their fate, making themselves liable to challenge the order.
The appellants who had companye to this Court were number parties to the writ petitions.
1 to 34 were recruited as Constables in Chandigarh Police by the Union Territory, Chandigarh and they are governed by the Rules as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, as is evincible, 28 companystables were brought on List B in accordance with the amended Rule and deputed for Lower School Course in October, 1989 having qualified were promoted as officiating Head Constables on 8.6.1990.
The said submission was resisted by the Union of India and its functionaries asserting, inter alia, the amended Rule 13.7 having companye into force the Department was entitled to go ahead with the selection as envisaged under the Rules.
It was companytended by the applicants therein that the impugned amendment had altogether deprived them of their right to be sent for promotion companyrse to enable them to be companysidered for promotion to the post of Head Constable in accordance with the criterion prescribed by the unamended Rule.
On the other hand, the Administration may suffer due to the shortage of the Head Constables and the balance of companyvenience is that the Chandigarh Administration should be allowed to companyplete the selection of the Head Constables, as already numberified by them.
697/CH/88, 872/CH/88 and 137/CH/89 were filed before the tribunal challenging the validity of the amended rules and with ancillary prayers which included quashing of orders dated 28.10.1988 whereby the list was drawn of the eligible Constables to participate in B 1 test, and dated 25.1.1989 regarding companyduct of B 1 test.
It was companytended before the tribunal that as they were companyfirmed Constables, they had acquired a valuable right to be companysidered for admission to the Lower School Course in accordance with the pre amended Rules, i.e., the rules that existed between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988.
In the meantime, three Original Applications, i.e., O.A. Nos.
137/CH/89, the interim order dated 19.4.1989, the order passed by this Court on 29.1.1996 and the challenge to the order dated 18.12.1989 whereby the Constables were sent for training on the basis of written test, irrespective of seniority and order dated 28.12.1989 by which they were promoted as Head Constables which was set aside by the tribunal in view of order dated 23.9.1998 placing reliance on the decision dated 8.1.1990 in OA No.
