http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: K.K.M. NAIR AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1993

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR  244            1993 SCR  (2) 906  1993 SCC  Supl.  (2) 506 JT 1993 (2)   715  1993 SCALE  (2)469

ACT: Civil Services: Indian  Ordnance  Factories (Recruitment and  Conditions  of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956: Rules 3(1), 8 and 12--Seniority--Promotional cadre--Circular giving  benefit of accelerated chances  of  promotion--Later withdrawn by subsequent circular--Benefits of first circular restored   by   High  Court--Consequential   orders   giving antedated   seniority  and   promotions--Persons   adversely affected  but  were not parties to  the  earlier  litigation approaching    Tribunal--Tribunal    setting    aside    the order--Validity of.

HEADNOTE: The  Director-General,  Ordnance Factories (D.G.)  issued  a Circular  dated  6.11.1962 to the effect  that  the  Diploma holders  who  have been appointed-as  Supervisor  Grade  ’B’ (technical) or in equivalent grades, should on completion of one  year’s  satisfactory service be promoted  the  post  of Supervisor  Grade  ’A’ (Tech.) and the Diploma  holders  who worked  satisfactorily  as  Supervisor  ’A’  (Tech.)  or  in equivalent  grades  for  2  years  should  be  promoted   as Chargeman.   Subsequently the D.G. issued  another  Circular dated 20.1.1966 according to which promotions were to be  in accordance  with  normal rules,i.e. on the  basis  of  their listing  by the relevant Departmental  Promotion’  Committee and  not  merely  on satisfactory completition  of  2  years continuous  service  as Supervisor ’A’ Grade  or  equivalent grades.  In effect, the first Circular was withdrawn by  the second Circular. In  1973  some Supervisors Grade ’Al riled a  Writ  Petition before  the  High  Court  claiming  benefit  of  the   first circular.  Without going into the merits of the  controvery, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay.  On appeal, a Division Bench of  the High  Court  dismissed  the Writ  Petition  on  merits.   On further  appeal this Court directed that the cases of  those appellants be considered for promo906 907 tion as Chargeman Gr.II and they promoted them, unless  they

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

were found unfit, from the dates on which they ought to have been  promoted.  (Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. U.O.I,  C.A.  No. 441/1981   decided  on  2.2.81).  Thereafter   the   present appellants  riled  Writ  Petitions  before  the  High  Court praying for the same relief as was granted by this Court  in Virendra  Kumar’s  case.  The High Court  allowed  the  Writ Petitions.   The Special Leave Petitions filed by the  Union of  India  against  the  Judgment  came  to  be   dismissed. Consequently.  the  D.G. issued an  order  giving  antedated seniority  to the appellants for the purposes of  promotion. The appellants were also given deemed dates of promotion  to post  of chargeman Gr.11 from the dates when they  completed two  years of service as Supervisor Gr.  ’A’ and  consequent seniority in the other higher grades.  This resulted in some employees who were senior to the appellants in the cadre  of Chargeman  Gr.II and other higher grades becoming junior  to the   appellants.   These  employees  who  were   ’adversely affected  by  the  order  of  the  D.G.  giving   ante-dated seniority  to  the  appellants and  were  not  impleaded  as parties at any stage of the litigation, challenged the  DG’s order  before  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal.   The Tribunal  allowed  the application and set  aside  the  DG’s order giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants. Aggrieved  by the Judgment of the Tribunal,  the  appellants preferred the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD:  1.  This  Court  has  authoritatively  laid  down  in Paluru’s case that Civil Appeal No. 441/81 Virendra Kumar v. U.O.I,  was  not  correctly decided.   The  appellants  have throughout been basing their claim on Virendra Kumar’s case. Once  the base is knocked out by the judgment of this  Court in  Paluru’s case the appellants are left with no ground  to sustain  the order dated February 20/25, 1987 issued by  the D.G. by which they were given ante-dated seniority. [917  B- C] 1.2. Even if it is assumed that the High Court judgment  had become  final with the dismissal of the SLP against it,  and could  Rot  have  been reviewed by the  High  Court  or  the Tribunal, it became final only between the parties inter-se. The  first  circular  was  issued in  the  year  1962.   The appellants  riled  writ petitions in the High  Court  twenty years thereafter seeking enforcement of the first  circular. The  petitioners  wanted  the clock to be put  back  by  two decades through the process of the Court.  All those 908 persons  who  were  promoted in accordance  with  the  rules during that long period and were not parties before the High Court  could not be made to suffer for no fault  of  theirs. On the other hand some employees challenged the order  dated February  20/25, 1987 which affected them  adversely  within the  period of limitation before the Central  Administrative Tribunal.   In  any  case  the judgment  of  this  Court  in Virendra Kumar having been over-ruled in Paluru’s case,  the appellants  have  neither the law nor the  equity  on  their side.  The judgment of the Tribunal being in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Paluru’s case there is no ground to interfere with the same. [918 A-D] Paluru  Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. etc. v. Union of India &  Anr., [1989] 2 SCR 92, followed. Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 441/81 decided on 2.2.1981, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1690 of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1991 of the  Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur in O.A. No. 217 of 1987. M.K. Ramamurthi and V.J. Francis for the Appellants. Narayan B. Shetye, K. Lahiri, Vineet Kumar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Kitty Kumar Mangalam, S.N. Terdo and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. This appeal is a sequel to the checkered litigation, over  a period  of  two  decades,  between  members  of  the  Indian Ordnance  Factories  Class III Service (the  Service).   The first round of litigation was concluded in favour of  K.K.M. Nair  and others, the appellants, on July 28,1986  when  the special leave petitions filed by the Union of India, against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, were dismissed by this court.  As a consequence the Director General  Ordnance Factories  (DG) issued an order dated February  20/25,  1987 granting benefits to the appellants towards seniority 909 in  different grades of the Service.  S.K Chattopadhyay  and others, the respondents, who were not parties to the earlier litigation, challenged the order dated February 20/25,  1987 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.  The Tribunal by its judgment dated February 14,1991 allowed the  application of  S.K  Chattopadhyay and others and set  aside  the  order dated February 20/25, 1987.  This appeal by K.K.M. Nair  and others is against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur. The recruitment and seniority of the members of the  Service are governed by the statutory rules called ’Indian  Ordnance Factories  (Recruitment and Conditions of Service  of  Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956" (the rules).  Rules 3(1), 8  and 12 of the rules which are relevant are reproduced hereunder: "3(1).   The  Class  III personnel  service  in  the  Indian Ordnance Factories to which these rules shall apply consists of the posts of the following grades, namely: Foreman (including Foreman/Design). Storeholder Assistant Foreman Assistant Storeholder Chargeman, Grade I (including Chargeman, Grade I/Design) Chargeman, Grade II Supervisor, Grade ’A’ Supervisor, Grade ’B’. 8(1)  Appointments  by  promotion  shall  be  made  by   the Director-General  on the basis of selection  lists  prepared for  the  different grades by the duly  constituted  Depart- mental Promotion Committees. (2)  Such Selection lists shall be prepared:- 910               (a) In respect of appointment to the grade  of               Foreman,   Storeholder,   Assistant   Foreman,               Assistant  Storeholder  by  the   Departmental               Promotion  Committee  11  consisting  of   the               Director-General  and  two  officers  of   the               Directorate   General,   Ordnance    Factories               nominated by the Director-General;               (b) In respect of appointments to the grade of               Chargeman,  Grade I, and Chargeman, Grade  11,               by  the Departmental Promotion  Committee  III               (Central)  consisting of the Deputy  Director-               General,  Ordnance Factories and two  officers               of the Directorate-General, Ordnance Factories

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

             nominated   by  the   Director-General   after               perusal   of   the  recommendations   of   the               Departmental    Promotion    Committee     III               (Factories)  which  shall be set  up  in  each               Factory    and    shall   consist    of    the               Superintendent  of the Factory and  two  other               gazetted officers of the Factory nominated  by               the Director-General; and               (c)  In respect of appointments to the  grades               of  Supervisor  ’A’  and  ’B’  Grades  by  the               Departmental    Promotion    Committee     III               (Factories)  consisting of the  Superintendent               of the Factory and two other gazetted officers               of  the  Factory nominated  by  the  Director-               General.               (3) The Departmental Promotion Committee shall               meet periodically at least once a year and  as               more  often  as  may be  necessary  and  shall               prepare  for each grade and category in  order               of merit a list of names of persons considered               at for promotion.               (4) A vacancy to be filled by promotion  shall               be  filled  by persons on  the  approved  list               strictly  in  the  order in  which  names  are               arranged in that list provided that:-               (i) appointments to the grade of  Supervisors,               Grade  ’A’  shall  normally  be  confined   to               employees  in the particular Factory in  which               the Vacancy has arisen; and               (ii)  in respect of appointment to other posts               the next 911               person  on the list working in the Factory  in               which the vacancy has arisen may be  appointed               out  of turn if the vacancy is not  likely  to               last for more than nine months.               12.   No  appointment to the  posts  to  which               these rules apply shall be made otherwise than               as specified in these rules". Appellants  1, 6, 11 and 12 were appointed Supervisor  Grade ’B’ during the years 1961/62.  The remaining appellants were appointed  Supervisor Grade ’A’ during the  period  1964/65. Appellants  1 to 11 were promoted as Chargeman, Grade II  on different  dates  during  1972/77.  They  were  promoted  to Chargeman  Grade  I  during the years  1979/80.   They  were further promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman during the period  1981  to 1984.  S.K. Chattopadhyay  and  others  are respondents  4  to 9 in this appeal.  Respondents  4  and  5 joined as Chargeman Grade II in the year 1966, respondent  9 in  the  year  1967,  respondent 6  in  the  year  1971  and respondents 7 and 8 in the year 1974.  They were promoted to Chargeman Grade I during the years 1978/1979.  Respondents 4 to 9 were further promoted to the post of Assistant  Foreman during  the  period from 1980 to 1984.  It is  not  disputed that  the recruitment and promotions of the  appellants  and respondents were made in accordance with the rules. It is necessary to lay down the factual matrix which led  to the  passing of the order dated February 20/25, 1987 by  the DG. The  DG  issued  circular  dated  November  6,  1962  (first circular) which is reproduced hereunder:               "D.G.O.F.  has  decided that  Diploma  holders               serving  as Supervisor  ’A’  (Tech)/Supervisor               ’B’/(Tech) and in equivalent grades should  be               treated as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             (i)  All those Diploma holders who  have  been               appointed  as  Supervisor’B’  (Tech)  (and  in               equivalent grades) should on completion of one               year’s   satisfactory  service   in   ordnance               factories be promoted to Supervisor ’A’ (Tech)               and in equivalent grades.)               (ii)  All  those  Diploma  holders  who   work               satisfactorily as               Supervisor ’A’ (Tech) or in equivalent  grades               for 2 years               in  Ordnance  Factory should  be  promoted  to               Chargeman." 912 Subsequently the D.G. issued circular dated January 20, 1966 (second  circular).   The  operative  part  of  the   second circular is as under:               "The question of promotion of Diploma  holders               in Mech/Elec.  Engineering and  Ex-apprentices               serving  as  Supr.  ’A’ Gr. or  in  equivalent               grades  has received further consideration  of               the  D.G.O.F. who has decided that  in  future               promotions  of  all such individuals  will  be               effected  in accordance with the normal  rules               i.e.  on  the basis of their  listing  by  the               relevant  D.P.C. and not merely on  completion               of 2 years satisfactory continuous service  as               Super.  A Gr. or equivalent grades.’ It is, thus, obvious that after the issue of second circular no Supervisor Grade ’A’ could claim to have become  eligible for promotion merely on completion of two years satisfactory service and his promotion thereafter could be effected  only in  accordance  with the rules.  In a  nut-shell  the  first circular was withdrawn by the second circular. Seventy   Five  supervisors  Grade  ’A’  (other   than   the appellants  and  the  respondents before us)  filed  a  writ petition  in  the  Allahabad High Court  in  the  year  1972 claiming benefit of the first circular.  Their grievance was that  they were not being promoted to the post of  Chargeman Grade  11  on completion of two years  satisfactory  service even  though  large  number of  Supervisors  Grade  ’A’  had already  been promoted in terms of the first circular.   The writ  petition  was contested by the Union of  India,  inter alia, on the ground that under rule 8 of the rules promotion from  Supervisor Grade ’A’ to Chargeman Grade II was  to  be made  on the basis of selection.  In the first instance  the selection  was  to  be made by  the  Departmental  Promotion Committee  at  the  Factory  level  and  thereafter  by  the Departmental Committee at the central level.  The promotions were  to be made by the DG on the basis of the  select  list prepared  as  a  result of the selections made  by  the  two committees.   It  was  further asserted that  all  the  writ petitioners were considered for promotion in accordance with the  rules but they were not found fit for  promotion.   The learned  Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court,  however, did not go into the merits of the controversy and  dismissed the  writ  petition  on the ground of  delay.   Against  the judgment  of the learned Single Judge appeal  was  preferred before  a  Division Bench of the High Court.   The  Division Bench went into the merits 913 of the controversy and came to the conclusion that promotion from  Supervisor Grade ’A’ to Chargeman Grade II could  only be made in accordance with the procedure laid down under the rules.   The learned Judges further took the view  that  the first circular was to be interpreted in conformity with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

rules.   It  was  further held that even if  it  was  to  be assumed  that the DG promoted some Supervisors Grade ’A’  to the post of Chargeman Grade II immediately on the completion of two years service, without following rule 8 of the rules, no  right  would accrue in favour of  the  writ  petitioners inasmuch  as such promotions would be contrary to the  rules and would confer no legal right on the writ petitioners  for likewise  promotion  in breach of the rules.   The  argument based  on Article 16 was also rejected.  The Division  Bench of  the  Allahabad  High Court,  thus,  dismissed  the  writ petition  on merits.  Against the judgment of the  Allahabad High  Court  Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 was  preferred  in this  Court.  Since the order dated February 2, 1981  passed in  Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.   Civil Appeal No. 441/81 is the backbone of the appellants claim we reproduce the said order hereunder:               "Heard counsel.  Special leave granted.               Our  attention  has been  invited  by  learned               counsel  for  both the sides to  the  relevant               rules  which govern promotion to the  post  of               Chargeman  Grade 11.  It appears that a  large               number of persons have been promoted to  those               posts  though  they have  completed  only  two               years of service.  The Government now  appears               to insist that in so far as the appellants are               concerned   they  cannot  be  considered   for               promotion unless they complete three years  of               service.  We see no justification for any such               differential  treatment  being  given  to  the               appellants.   If  a  large  number  of   other               persons similarly situated have been  promoted               as  Chargeman  Grade 11 after  completing  two               years  of service, there is no reason why  the               appellants   should  also  not  be   similarly               promoted  after completing the same period  of               service.   We  are  not  suggesting  that  the               appellants are entitled to be promoted to  the               aforesaid  posts even if they are found  unfit               to be promoted.               We   therefore  direct  that   the   concerned               authorities will 914               consider  the  cases  of  the  appellants  for               promotion  as Chargeman Grade 11  and  promote               them  to the said posts unless they are  found               to be unfit.  If the appellants are  promoted,               they  will naturally have to be promoted  with               effect  from the date on which they  ought  to               have been promoted.               This order will dispose of the appeal.               There will be no order as to costs." Thereafter K.K.M. Nair and 124 others, the appellants, filed six  writ  petitions before the Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court during the period 1981-82. It was contended before the  High Court  that  the reasons which weighed with  this  Court  in allowing  Civil  Appeal No. 441/81 applied to the  six  writ petitions  also  and it was prayed that the same  relief  be granted to the petitioners.  The Madhya Pradesh High  Court, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal  No. 441/81,  allowed  the writ petitions by its  judgment  dated April 4, 1983.  Against the aforesaid judgment of the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court special leave  petitions  (Civil)-’Nos. 5987-92/86  were filed in this Court by the Union  of  India and  were  dismissed  on July 28,  1986.   Pursuant  to  the judgment  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated  April  4,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

1983  the  DG issued the order dated  February  20/25,  1987 giving  ante-dated  seniority  to  the  appellants  for  the purposes  of  promotion  to the  next  higher  grades.   The appellants  were, thus, given deemed dates of  promotion  to the  post  of Chargeman, Grade 11 from the  date  when  they completed  two  years of service as Grade A  and  consequent seniority  in the other higher grades.   S.K.  Chattopadhyay and others who were senior to the appellants in the cadre of Chargeman,  Grade 11 and other higher grades in the  service were  made junior to the appellants as a consequence of  the order dated February 20/25, 1987. At  this stage we may notice the judgment of this  Court  in Palun Ramkrishnaiah & Others etc. v. Union of India &  Anr., [1989]  2  SCR 92 delivered by a Three-Judge Bench  of  this Court  dismissing a bunch of nineteen writ  petitions  under Article  32 of the Constitution of, India.  The  petitioners in  the aforementioned writ petitions claimed to  have  been appointed  as  Supervisors, Grade ’A’  in  various  ordnance factories  between  1962  to 1966 and  had  filed  the  writ petitions with the prayer that the same relief be granted to them as was given by this Court to seventy five 915 Supervisors, Grade A in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981.   This Court  in  Paluru’s  case considered the  rules,  the  first circular, the second circular and the order of this court in Civil Appeal No. 441/81 dated February 2, 1981.   Dismissing the writ petitions this Court held as under:- 1.  The  executive instruction could make a  provision  only with  regard to a matter which was not covered by the  rules and  such  executive  instruction could  not  over-ride  any provisions of the rules. 2.  Notwithstanding  the  issue of  the  instructions  dated November 6, 1962 the procedure for making promotion as  laid down in rule 8 of the Rules had to be followed, and the said procedure   could   not  be  abrogated  by   the   executive instructions dated November 6, 1962. 3.  The only effect of the circular dated November  6,  1962 was  that Supervisors Grade ’A’ on completion of  two  years satisfactory  service  could be promoted  by  following  the procedure  contemplated  by  rule  8  of  the  Rules.   This circular had indeed the effect of accelerating the chance of promotion.  The right to promotion on the other hand, was to be  governed  by  the rules.  This  right  of  promotion  as provided  by  the rules was neither affected  nor  could  be affected by the circular. 4. After coming into force of the circular dated January 20, 1966 promotions could not be made just on completion of  two years satisfactory service tinder the earlier circular dated November  6,  1962, the same having been superseded  by  the latter circular. 5.  Supervisor,  Grade A who had been  promoted  before  the coming  into  force of the circular dated January  20,  1966 stood  in a class separate from those whose promotions  were to  be  made thereafter.  The fact  that  some  Supervisors, Grade  A had been promoted before the coming into  force  of the  circular dated January 20, 1966 could  not,  therefore, constitute the basis for an argument that those  Supervisors Grade A whose cases came up for consideration thereafter and who were promoted in due course in accordance with the rules were discriminated against. 6.  There are sufficient indications that when Civil  Appeal No.  441/81  was  heard by this  Court  the  circular  dated January   20,  1966  and  the  legal  consequences   flowing therefrom  were not brought to the notice of this  Court  by the learned counsel for the respondents or the same were not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

916 properly emphasised. It is thus obvious that the Three-Judge Bench of this  Court in Paluru’s case did not approve the order dated February 2, 1981 of Two Judge Bench in Civil Appeal No. 441/81. Since the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.  441/81 had  become  final inter-partes, it had to  be  implemented. While  considering the extent of the relief to be  given  to the  appellants  in Civil Appeal No. 441/81  this  Court  in Paluru’s case observed as under:-               "As  already  noticed  earlier  certain   writ               petitions  filed in Madhya Pradesh High  Court               were  allowed  by that Court were  allowed  by               that  Court on 4th April, 1983 relying on  the               judgment  of  this Court dated  2nd  February,                             1981  in Civil Appeal No. 441/81.  Against  th e               aforesaid judgment of the Madhya Pradesh  High               Court  dated  4th April,  1983  Special  Leave               Petitions  (Civil) Nos. 5987-92 of  1986  were               filed in this Court by the Union of India  and               were  dismissed  on  28th  July,  1986.    The               findings  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court  in               its judgment dated 4th April, 1983 thus  stand               approved  by this Court.  In this view of  the               matter  to  put  them  at  par  it  would   be               appropriate  that  the  appellants  in   Civil               Appeal No. 441 of 1981 may also be granted the               same   relief   which  was  granted   to   the               petitioners  in the writ petitions before  the               Madhya Pradesh High Court." The  appellants have raised an argument based on  the  above quoted observations of this Court in Paluru’s case which  we shall consider at a later stage in this judgment. We  may  come back to the point of time  when  the  Director General  issued the order dated February 20/25, 1987  giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants in various grades  of the  service.   As mentioned above  S.K.  Chattopadhyay  and others  were  not impleaded as parties at any stage  of  the litigation  earlier to the issue of the said  orders.   They were  adversely affected in the matter of seniority for  the first  time by the order dated February 20/25,  1987.   S.K. Chattopadhyay  and others challenged the said  order  before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench.  The 917 Tribunal by its judgment dated February 14, 1991 allowed the application  of S.K. Chattopadhyay and others and set  aside the  order  dated  February 20/25,  1987  giving  ante-dated seniority to the appellants. We agree with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal though we  do not appreciate the reasoning adopted by the  Tribunal in   reaching   the  said  conclusions.   This   Court   has authoritatively laid down in Paluru’s case that Civil Appeal No.  441/81  was  not correctly decided  by  this  Court.The appellants have through-out, been basing their claim on  the order  dated  February 2,1981 in Civil  Appeal  No.  441/81. Once  the base is knocked out by the judgment of this  court in  Paluru’s case the appellants are left with no ground  to sustain  the order dated February 20/25, 1987 by which  they were given ante-dated seniority.  Following the judgment  of this  Court  in Paluru’s case and the reasoning  therein  we uphold  the impugned judgment of the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. Mr. M.K. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently  argued that the judgment dated April 4, 1983  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in favour of  the  appellants having  been  approved by this Court in  Palunt’s  case  the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to negate the same.  We do  not agree with the learned counsel. We have reproduced above the paragraph from the judgment  in Paluru’s case wherein this Court has observed, "findings  of the  Madhya  Pradesh High Court in its  judgment  dated  4th April,  1983 thus stand approved by this Court".  It is  not disputed  that  the  said "approval" by this  Court  was  by dismissing the special leave petitions against the  judgment of  the  Madhya Pradesh High Court.  There  is  no  reasoned judgment/order  by this Court approving the judgment of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court.  It is not necessary for us to go into the question whether in a situation like this any court below  could  have  reversed  the  judgment  by  review   or otherwise, because in this case we are faced with  different situation.   S.K. Chattopadhyay and others were not  parties to  the  proceedings before the Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court which ended by the dismissal of the special leave  petitions by  this Court on July 28, 1986.  Till that date  no  action adverse  to  them  had been taken by the  DG  or  any  other authority.   It  was  incumbent on the  appellants  to  have impleaded  all the persons who were likely to  be  adversely affected  in  the event of appellants success  in  the  writ petition  before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.   Under  the circumstances 918 even  if  it is assumed that the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court judgment had ’become final and could not have been  reviewed by  the  High Court or the Tribunal, it  became  final  only between the parties inter-se.  The first circular was issued in  the year 1962.  The appellants filed writ  petitions  in the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  twenty  years  thereafter seeking enforcement of the first circular.  The  petitioners wanted  the clock to be put back by two decades through  the process  of the Court.  All those persons who were  promoted in  accordance  with the rules during that long  period  and were not parties before the Madhya Pradesh High Court cannot be  made  to suffer for no fault of theirs.   On  the  other hand,  S.K.  Chattopadhyay and others challenged  the  order dated  February  20/25, 1987 which affected  them  adversely within  the  period  of limitation before  the  Central  Ad- ministrative  Tribunal.   In any case the judgment  of  this Court in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 having been over-ruled by  Three-Judge  Bench of this Court in Paluru’s  case,  the appellants  have  neither the law nor the  equity  on  their side.  The judgment of the Tribunal being in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Paluru’s case, we see  no ground to interfere with the same. Before  parting  with  this judgment  we  may  mention  that because  of  contradictory judgments of various  courts  and Central   Administrative  Tribunals  in  the   country   the seniority  position of the members of the  service-all  over the  country, numbering about twenty thousand could  not  be crystallised  over  a period of two decades.  We  have  been informed   by   the  Union  of  India   that   the   Central Administrative  Tribunals all over the country have, by  and large,  taken  uniform view following the judgment  of  this Court  in  Paluru’s case and the seniority lists  have  been issued  in conformity therewith.  It has been a  long-drawn- out battle in the court-corridors causing lot of expense and suffering to the members of the service.  We hope that  this judgment  has  finally  drawn the  curtains  over  the  con- troversy. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.  No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

G.N.                      Appeal dismissed. 919