Challenge to Promotion List Liable for Dismissal Due to Non-Joinder of Affected Necessary Parties

The applicant, a Junior Engineer (P.Way) in the South East Central Railway (SECR), challenged a notification dated 25.08.2021 which advertised 21 posts for Senior Section Engineer (SSE) bifurcated as 18 UR, 2 SC, and 1 ST

The applicant, ranked 27th in the seniority list, alleged that the official respondents improperly adjusted SC candidates against UR vacancies contrary to Supreme Court directions, thereby excluding him from the zone of consideration

The official respondents maintained that the selection followed Establishment Rules 66/2021 and 23/2022

Respondent No. 4 argued that the applicant failed to implead other SC candidates (Mr. Pushpram Koshley and Mr. Amrit Lal) who were also adjusted against UR points and would be adversely affected by the litigation

1. Whether the adjustment of reserved category candidates against unreserved points in the promotion process was legally sustainable

2. Whether the Original Application is maintainable in light of the non-joinder of necessary parties who were included in the impugned promotion list

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles of reservation in promotion established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj v. Union of India, which mandates establishing inadequacy of representation

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, which provided interim directions for promotions during the pendency of related litigations

Regarding procedural law, the court applied the "necessary party" doctrine from Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, holding that an order passed in violation of natural justice against a non-impleaded party is void

Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was applied to underscore that the Tribunal must be guided by the principles of natural justice

The Tribunal observed that while the adjustment of SC candidates at Sr. Nos. 13 and 19 against UR vacancies appeared to contradict current legal positions regarding reservation in promotions

the applicant only impleaded Respondent No. 4, neglecting to join other candidates at Sr. Nos. 13 and 19 who were similarly situated

The Tribunal reasoned that under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, though not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, it is bound by natural justice, which prohibits setting aside an appointment without giving the appointee an opportunity to be heard

Since the number of affected employees was small and their impleadment was practicable, their absence was fatal to the application

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application without costs, declining to interfere with the promotion of Respondent No. 4 or the other unrepresented candidates