1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO. 20 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1762 OF 1994 Anil Manohar Satav and another .... Petitioners. V/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others .... Respondents. Ms. N.V. Sanglikar for petitioners. Ms. V.S. Gharpure for responent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: J.N. Patel & V.M. Kanade, JJ. DATE : 23rd February, 2010 P.C: 1. Petitioners have filed this Review Petition for reviewing the order passed by this Court dated 20/12/2005 whereby this Court was pleased to quash Circular dated 11/08/1992. Petitioners were not parties to the Writ Petition which was filed by Respondent No.4 and, in the Review Petition, it has 2 been urged, firstly, that rights of Petitioners are directly affected by order passed in the Writ Petition though they were not parties to the Petition or were made aware of the filing of the Petition. Secondly, it is submitted that since there was no stay to the circular impugned in the Petition, several employees were promoted in pursuance of the impugned Circular and, as such, by virtue of the order passed by this Court, rights of these persons who were promoted pursuant to the impugned Circular have been affected by the impugned order. Thirdly, it is submitted that the order would cause serious anomaly in the seniority list and would upset the seniority of petitioners and several similarly placed persons without hearing them. Lastly, it is submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in H.P. Gupta and another v. Union of India and Others1 was not brought to the notice of the Court and in the said judgment of the Apex Court it was held that such a classification, as was done in the present case, was permissible if it is correct and serves the purpose. It is submitted that since the said judgment was not brought to the notice of this Court, this Court has passed the impugned order. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Madan Mohan Joshi and others2. It is submitted that in cases where rights of parties are affected, such parties are necessary parties. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on 1 (2002) 10 SCC 658 2 (2008) 6 SCC 797 3 behalf of Petitioners and Respondents. 3. In our view, no case is made out by Petitioners for reviewing the impugned order. Firstly, Respondent No.4 had filed a Petition challenging the impugned Circular. It is a well settled position in law that in cases where Rule, Regulation, Circular or Notification is challenged, it is not necessary to implead all persons who are likely to be affected, as parties to the Petition. Petitioners in the Review Petition were already promoted pursuant to the said Circular which was issued by the Corporation. Petitioners were, therefore, not necessary or proper parties to the Petition in which validity of the Circular was challenged. In any event, Petition was pending in this Court from 1994 till it was decided by the impugned order in 2005. No reasons have been given why application for impleading them as parties was not taken out by them during the pendency of the Petition. In any case, in our view, they were not necessary and proper parties since the Respondent No.4 had challenged the Circular issued by the Corporation. 4. So far as the second submission is concerned viz. that Respondent No.4 had not brought judgment of the Apex Court in the case of H.P. Gupta and another (supra) to the notice of this Court and, therefore, the order should be recalled, also, in our view is unsustainable. Again, it is a settled position in law that merely because judgment of the Apex Court was not cited that cannot be considered as a 4 ground of review. Even otherwise the facts in the said judgment in H.P. Gupta and another (supra) were different and, therefore, ratio of the said judgment, in any case, would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, appellants were working as Junior Telecom Officers in the Telecommunication Department of Respondent No.1 – Union of India. They were direct recruits into the service and they possessed the qualification of degree in Engineering even at the time of joining the service and under the scheme framed by Respondent Union of India, two advance increments were given to those who acquired degree in Engineering while in service. Appellants claimed that similar benefits should also be extended to them as otherwise the policy would result in hostile discrimination. In the facts of the aforesaid case, the Apex Court was of the view that if the classification is correct and serves the purpose, it is not subject to judicial review. In the present case, the issue before this Court was equality in the matter of public employment and, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court held that the classification is arbitrary and discriminates two classes of in service candidates without any rational justification. The ratio of the judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for Petitioners would not apply to the facts of the present case. Here, the issue before the Apex Court was regarding determination of seniority and it was held that in such cases the party who is adversely affected is a necessary party. In the present case, issue was not 5 regarding seniority but regarding validity of the Circular issued by the Corporation. Therefore, ratio of the said case would not apply to the facts of the present case. 5. No case is, therefore, made out for reviewing the order passed by this Court. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 6