NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.3009 of 2009

RAJESH KAGRA & ORS. …. PETITIONERS VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. & ORS.                  …. RESPONDENTS [ALONG WITH THE RECORD OF SLP(C) NO. 25083/2009]

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 3029-3031 OF 2009

SANJAY KHANDE & ORS.       …. PETITIONERS VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. & ORS.                  …. RESPONDENTS     

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 30579 OF 2009

R.L. BHARTIYA       …. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. & ORS.                  …. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1. Special  Leave  Petition(C)  No.  3009  of  2009  has  been  

preferred against  the order dated 31st July,  2008 passed in  

Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2008.  In Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.  

3029-3031  of  2009,  petitioners  assail  the  order  dated  31st

July, 2008 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ  

Appeal No. 350 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No. 356 of 2008.  Writ  

Appeal Nos. 350, 356 and 383 of 2008 have been dismissed by  

a common order dated 31st July, 2008 whereby the appeals  

preferred  by  the  petitioners  against  the  order  dated  25th  

February, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004 have  

been dismissed on the  ground that  the  petitioners  have  no  

locus standi to prefer appeals and while doing so, it has been  

observed that in case their rights in any manner are affected,  

they have to agitate the same by filing  separate writ petition.  

By order dated 5th September, 2008, passed in MCC No. 689 of  

2008,  the  review application  preferred against  the  aforesaid  

order has been dismissed.   

2. Writ Appeal No. 276 of 2009 has been dismissed by order  

dated 13th August, 2009, relying on the judgment passed by  

the  High Court in Writ Appeal No. 350 of 2008, which has  

been assailed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25083 of 2009.  

As the validity of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 350 of  

2008 is under consideration in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.  

2

3029-3031 of 2009, this petition will  have the same fate as  

those Special Leave Petitions.  

3. Another Special Leave Petition(C) No. 30579 of 2009 has  

been preferred against an interim order dated 11th November,  

2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.  

5203 of  2009 whereby  the  High  Court  while  issuing  notice  

declined to grant any interim relief.   

4. For the purpose of disposal of these petitions, we have  

adverted  to  the  pleadings  in  Special  Leave  Petition(C)  Nos.  

3029-3031 of 2009. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein filed the  

writ  petition;  praying  for  correction  of  their  position  in  the  

gradation list of Assistant Engineers and after such correction  

to promote them as Executive Engineers from the date their  

juniors were promoted.   These reliefs were sought for,  inter   

alia, on the ground that respondent nos. 3 to 7 of the writ  

petition - respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein, were promoted from  

Junior  Engineers  to  Assistant  Engineers  in  excess  of  their  

quota  and  therefore  they  are  juniors  to  them.   Petitioners  

3

herein are down below them in gradation list and undisputedly  

juniors to both of them.  The learned Single Judge by order  

dated 25th February, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004  

disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

“(1) That the respondents are directed to re-fix the placement of   the  petitioners  in  the  gradation  list  of  Assistant  Engineers  showing  the  position  as  on  01.4.2001  after  considering  the   observations made by this Court and calculating the fact that at   the time of absorption of Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers   how many  posts  were  sanctioned  of  Assistant  Engineers  and  whether direct recruitees had a quota for promotion and if  the   department found that the Junior Engineers who were absorbed   as Assistant Engineers they were in excess of the quota or their   posts  were  not  sanctioned  by  the  department  as  Assistant   Engineers, certainly they cannot be placed above the petitioners.   In  such  circumstances,  the  placement  of  the  petitioners  be  modified accordingly;

(2) after modification in the placement of the petitioners in the  gradation  list  of  2001,  the  petitioners  are  entitled  for  consequential  relief  of  promotion  etc.  that  may  also  be  given to the petitioners;

(3) the  aforesaid  exercise  be  completed  within  a  period  of   three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of  this order.

(4) No order as to costs.”

5. The petitioners  who were  not  party  in  the  writ  

petition  and  do  not  claim  seniority  over  either  the  

petitioners  or  respondents  of  the  writ  petition  having  

entered  into  the  service  much  later  than  both  of  them  

challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge  

4

in Writ Appeals on various grounds including the ground  

that after long lapse of time, the High Court ought not to  

have directed for preparation of fresh gradation list.  By the  

impugned order, the appeals have been dismissed on the  

ground that they have no locus standi to prefer appeals and  

while  doing  so,  observed  that  in  case  their  rights  are  

affected, they may file separate writ petition.  An application  

for review of the aforesaid order was filed which has also  

been dismissed by order dated 5th September, 2008 passed  

in M.C.C. No. 689 of 2008.   

6. We have heard  learned Counsel  for  the  parties  

and perused the records.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that  

the  direction  to  grant  consequential  benefits  has  directly  

affected the petitioners and therefore the High Court erred  

in holding that the petitioners have no  locus standi to file  

the appeals. Respondents, however, contend that the High  

Court  has rightly  held that the petitioners have no  locus  

5

standi to file appeals and relegated them to the remedy of  

fresh petition.  

8. We do not find any substance in the submission  

of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. As the petitioners  

do not claim seniority over them, and the writ-petitioners  

having admittedly senior to them, they were not necessary  

party.   Direction  to  grant  consequential  benefits  is  

dependent upon the placement of the writ petitioners in the  

seniority list vis-a-vis the respondents of the writ petitions.  

Petitioners herein do not claim seniority over either of them.  

The plea of the petitioners that the respondents of the writ  

petitions who have been held junior to the writ petitioners  

have retired and the writ-petitioners still in service, hence  

latter  would not come in their  way for  further promotion  

whereas the former would, is a fortuitous circumstance to  

confer right on them to challenge the order of the learned  

Single  Judge.   In our opinion,  writ  petitioners  coming in  

their way for further promotions could not be a ground to  

hold that the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the  

6

order of the learned Single Judge  deciding inter se seniority  

between  two  groups  of  Assistant  Engineers  over  whom,  

petitioners do not claim any seniority.  On the basis of the  

seniority list, either the writ petitioners would have got the  

promotional post or the respondents herein but in no case  

the petitioners herein would have legitimately claimed those  

posts.

9. We are of the opinion that the High Court did not  

err  in  holding  that  petitioners  have  no  locus  standi to  

challenge the order and relegating them to the remedy of  

fresh petitions. In case petitioners seek to take recourse to  

the  remedy  of  fresh  petitions  all  the  contentions  raised  

herein shall remain open.

10. Special Leave Petition(C) No. 30579 of 2009 is against  

the issuance of notice and declining to pass interim order,  

hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order at  

this stage.

7

11. We  dismiss  all  the  petitions  with  the  observations  

aforesaid.

..………..……………………………….J.                      (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                             ……………………………………………J.                                 (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, September 17, 2010.  

8