http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: K AJIT BABU AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/07/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T V.N.KHARE J.      The short  question that  arises for  consideration  in this  appeal   is  whether  the  application  filed  by  the appellants under  Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985(hereinafter  referred to  as  the  Act)  could  be rejected by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  as  not maintainable.      The facts giving rise to the question referred to above are these:-      The establishment  of the  Chief Controller  of Imports and Exports  is divided  into  four  separate  zones,  viz., eastern western,  southern and  northern and the employee of each of  the said  zones have  combined seniority list.  The present  appeal  concerns  the  appellants  working  in  the western zone  which comprises  the establishments at Bombay, Ahmedabad, Gandhidam,  Rajkot, Bhopal  and Goa.  Each of the zone comprises  of posts  of Lower  Division  Clerks,  Upper Division Clerks,  Section Heads, Controllers, etc (for short LDCs, UDCs,  etc.). The  LDCs are  the lowest  category from which the promotions are available to the post of udcs, from which  promotion   is  made   as  Licensing  Assistants  and thereafter as Section Heads.  From to post of Section Heads, the employees  are eligible  to be  promoted to  the post of Controllers.   The seniority lists are maintained cadrewise. The promotion  to the  post of  UDC is  made on the basis of seniority roll,  whereas promotion  to Licensing Assistants, Section Head  and Controllers  are  made  on  the  basis  of selection i.e.  seniority-cum-merit. The appellant before us were appointed  as LDCs.  In due course they wee promoted as UDCs, Licensing  Assistants, Section  Heads and Controllers. As Controllers  they were  promoted on  ad-hoc basis.   They working in  the western  zone which  is headed  by the Joint Chief Controller  of Imports  and Exports.  Subsequently, it was found  that some  of the  officers who were promoted and were transferred  in new  offices were  reluctant to join in the new  place of posting and as such, since the year 1978 a policy was adopted for seeking options as to wether they are ready to  go on  transfer in  case they are promoted or they would like to stay at the place of present posting foregoing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

their promotions.  The officers who have given their options to go out to new place of posting in case of promotion, they were given  promotions in  preference to the claims of their seniors.      In the  year 1983,  one PS  Jhon  and  other  who  were affected by  the seniority  list published  on 13.10.81  and were working  at Ahmedabad  filed a  Civil  Application  No. 1533/83 before  the Gujarat High Court making grievance that the respondents  never asked  for their options for going to the new  place of  posting in case of their promotions.  The said application  was transferred  to the  Ahmedabd Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal where it was numbered as Transfer Application  No.  263/86.    The  Tribunal  by  its judgment dated  August 14, 1987 held that the promotion made on the basis of options without resorting to the recruitment rules in  terms of  quota laid  down and  the procedure  for filling it  up is valid as long as it is ad-hoc and such ad- hoc promotions  do not  deprive seniority  of those who have not given  their options  for going  out to the new place of posting. The  tribunal was  further of  the  view  that  the employers are free to allow the juniors who have given their options to  continue to enjoy promotion on ad-hoc basis, but the orders  conferring regular  promotions to  such promotee cannot be  upheld in  so far  as it affects the seniority of those who  have not  given their  options.  The officers who have not given their options have the right to promotions in their own  turn of  seniority.   In  view  of  the  decision rendered by  the Central Administrative Tribunal referred to above, the  respondents prepared  and circulated  four draft seniority lists  inviting objections, if any.  Subsequently, a number  of review  petitions were  filed for reviewing the judgment given  by the  Tribunal in T.A. No. 263/86, but the said applications were rejected.  After the review petitions were rejected,  the present  appellants filed an application under  Section   19  of   the   Act   before   the   Central Administrative Tribuna,  Gujarat, at Ahmedabad. Relying upon a Full  Bench decision  of the  Tribunal, in  Jhon Lucas and others vs.  Additional Chief  Mechanical Engineer decided on 2.11.87, the  Tribunal held  that the persons who were not a party to  a decision but are affected by the decision of the tribunal are  not entitled  to  file  an  application  under Section 19  of the  Act, but can only file a review petition seeking review  of the  decision adversely  affecting  them. Consequently  the   appellants’  application   was  rejected summarily. The appellants have now come up to this Court.      As stated  earlier, the  appellant has  challenged  the impugned  seniority  list  prepared  on  the  basis  of  the decision rendered  by the  Cereal  Administrative  Tribunal, Ahmedabad on  Transfer  Application  No.263  of  1986  dated 14.8.1987, by  means of  an application  under Section 19 of the Act  wherein there  was no  prayer for setting aside the judgment dated 14.8.1987 of the Administrative Tribunal.  It is  true   that  the   judgment   given   by   the   Central Administrative Tribunal,  Ahmedabad in  T.A. No.263/86 would have come  in the  way of  the appellant.   Often in service matters the  judgments rendered either by the Tribunal or by the Court  also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases.   It  may help  on class  of employees and at the same time  adversely affect  another class of employees.  In such circumstances  the  judgments  of  the  courts  or  the tribunals  may   not  be   strictly  judgments  in  personam affecting only  to the  parties to  the cases, they would be judgments in rem.  In such a situation, the question arises; what remedy  is available  to such  affected persons who are not parties  to a  case, yet  the decision  in such  a  case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

adversely affect  to their  rights in  the matter  of  their seniority.   In the  present case,  the view  taken  by  the Tribunal that  the only  remedy available  to  the  affected persons is  to file  a Review  of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act.   Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to  review   its  decisions.     Rule   17  of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal  (Procedure and  Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for review shall  be entertained  unless it  is filed  within 30 days from  the date  of receipt  of the  copy of  the  order sought to  be reviewed.   Ordinarily,  right  of  review  is available only  to those  who are  party to a case. However, even if  we give  wider meaning  to the expression "a person feeling aggrieved"  occurring  in  Section  22  of  the  Act whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the whole case  decided by the Tribunal.  The right of review is no t  a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge.   The  right of  review is  possible  only  on limited grounds,  mentioned in  Order 47  of these  Code  of Civil Procedure.  Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code  of Civil  Procedure may  not be  applicable to the tribunals but  the principles  contained therein surely have to extended.   Otherwise  there being  no limitation  on the power of  review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of  finality of  a decision.   Besides  that,  the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the  period of limitation.  The decision given by the Tribunal,  unless  reviewed  or  appealed  against,  attains finality.   If such  a power  to  review  is  permitted,  no decision is  final, as  the decision  would  be  subject  to review  at  any  time  at  the  instance  of  party  feeling adversely affected  by the  said decision.  A party in whose favour a  decision has  been given  can not monitor the case for all  times to  come.   Public policy  demands that there should been  to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the  proceedings in  a case  will never  come to an end.   We,  therefore,  find  that  a  right  of  review  is available to  the aggrieved  persons  on  restricted  ground mentioned in  Order 47  of the  Code of  Civil Procedure  if filed within the period of limitation.      The Tribunal  rejected the application of the appellant merely on  the ground that the appellant was seeking setting aside   of   the   judgement   rendered   by   the   Central Administrative Tribunal,  Ahmedabad in the case of P.S. John (supra) in  T.A. No.263/86.   It  is here  that the Tribunal apparently fell  in error.  No doubt  the  decision  of  the tribunal in the case P.S. Jhon was against the appellant but the application  filed by  the appellant under Section 19 of the Act has to be dealt with in accordance with law.      Consistency, certainty  and uniformity  in the filed of judicial decisions are considered to be the benefits arising out of  the "Doctrine  of Precedent".   The precedent sets a pattern upon  which a  future conduct  may be based.  One of the basic  principles of  administration of justice is, that the cases  should be  decided alike.   Thus  the doctrine of precedent  is   applicable  to  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal also.   Whenever an application under Section 19 of the Act  is filed  and the  question involved  in  the  said application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the Tribunal, the  Tribunal necessarily has to take into account the judgment  rendered in  earlier case,  as a precedent and decide the application accordingly.  The Tribunal may either agree with  the view taken in the earlier judgment or it may dissent.  If it dissents, then the matter can be referred to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

a larger  bench/full bench  and place  the matter before the Chairman for  constituting a  larger bench so that there may be no conflict upon the two Benches.  The large Bench, then, has to  consider the  correctness  of  earlier  decision  in disposing of  the later  application.   The larger Bench can over-rule the view taken in the earlier judgment and declare the law, which would be binding on all the Benches (See Jhon Lucas (supra).   In  the present  case, what we find is that tribunal rejected the application of the appellants thinking that appellants are seeking setting aside of the decision of the tribunal  in Transfer Application No. 263 of 1986.  This view taken by the Tribunal was not correct.  The application of the  appellant was  required to  be decided in accordance with law.      For  the   aforesaid  reasons,   the   order   of   the Administrative Tribunal  dated 14.8.1987  passed in O.A. No. 47 of  1990 is  set aside  and the  case is sent back to the Tribunal for  decision on  merits  preferably  within  three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment. The appeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.