Non-parties to litigation cannot be reverted from service pursuant to merit list redrawing directed therein.

The Applicant joined JIPMER as a Safaiwala in 1999 and was promoted to Transport Assistant in 2009

Following a 2012 notification, he was selected and appointed as a Driver (Ordinary Grade)

In 2013, the 3rd Respondent (R3) challenged the selection process in OA No. 420/2013, alleging he was excluded despite having higher marks than another candidate, Mr. N. Ravichandran

The Applicant was not impleaded in that proceeding

On September 11, 2015, the Tribunal directed the respondents to redraw the merit list

Consequently, in 2016, Respondents 1 and 2 initiated steps to revert the Applicant to his original post of Safaiwala to accommodate R3

The Applicant challenged this reversion, and the Tribunal granted an interim stay on February 1, 2016

By the time of the final hearing, the Applicant had served as a Driver for over 14 years

1. Whether the respondents' action to revert the Applicant from the post of Driver to Safaiwala based on the implementation of an order in a case where he was not a party was legal and just

2. Whether the direction in OA No. 420/2013 to redraw the merit list necessitated or mandated the reversion of the Applicant

The court applied the legal maxim Res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicium faciunt, which dictates that matters adjudged in lawsuits do not prejudice those who were not parties to them

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (1997) 7 SCC 473, which establishes that third-party interests must be protected when they are not joined in litigation affecting their service status

The court also emphasized the principle of administrative fairness, noting that the Applicant had rendered long, unblemished service and should not be arbitrarily reverted without being heard

The Tribunal observed that the previous order in OA No. 420/2013 was limited to redrawing the select list based on merit and did not specifically direct the reversion of the Applicant

Because the Applicant was not impleaded in the earlier litigation, the Tribunal held that his service rights could not be summarily extinguished by an order passed in his absence

The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had performed his duties as a Driver for over 14 years without any adverse remarks or allegations of misconduct

It reasoned that while R3 was entitled to his appointment based on merit as per the earlier order, the Applicant’s long-standing position should be protected by regularizing him against available or future vacancies rather than reverting him to a lower post, which would be arbitrary and unjust

The Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize the Applicant’s services in the post of Driver (Ordinary Grade) against the next available vacancy

It further ordered the grant of consequential monetary benefits to the Applicant within three months

The interim order staying the reversion was made absolute

No order as to costs was made