IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition No. 39133 of 2006 [ O.A. No. 4579/1999] T.Subramani .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai-6. 2.The Chief Educational officer, Dindigal. 3.The District Educational officer, Dindigal. 4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Palani Town, Palani. .. Respondents Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.4579 of 1999 from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a writ of Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent passed in M.M.No.104559/CB/C33/97 dated 23.10.1998 and consequently directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Tamil Pandit above the junior who was promoted prior to the applicant with consequential monetary and all attendant benefits with cost and too pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr. K.Kuilmozhi For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan,AGP (Writs)for R1 : Mr.C.Manoharan, for R2. ------ O R D E R By order dated 23.10.1998, the request of the petitioner to revise the seniority in the post of Tamil Pandit, has been rejected by the Joint Director of School Education, the first respondent. The said order is under challenge. 2. Though the petitioner has challenged the revision of seniority and consequently prayed for a direction to fix the seniority in the cadre of Tamil Pandit above Smt. P.Jayalakshmi, he has not chosen to implead her as a party respondent in the writ petition. It is well settled that in matter relating to revision of seniority,the person claiming revision of seniority has to necessarily implead the party, who is likely to be affected by any decision to be made in this writ petition. Useful reference is made to the decisions of this Supreme Court as well as this Court. (i) In Prabodh Verma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1985 SC 167, the Supreme Court held that High Court cannot proceed to hear parties and take a decision adverse to those affected persons without getting them or their representatives as parties. (ii) In Baskaran Vs. The Commissioner of College Educational and 2 others reported in 1995(2) CTC 513, a Division Bench of this Court following the judgment of Prabodh Verma's case (AIR 1985 SC 167), held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and the persons who would be vitally affected by the decision are necessary parties. The Court should dismiss the writ petition, if necessary parties are not impleaded in the writ petition. (iii) In Rajbir Singh, HFS  II Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 1996(2) SCC 19, the dismissal of a writ petition, challenging the inter se seniority, without impleading the other persons was confirmed by the Apex Court. (iv) In yet another decision in Ramarao and others Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and others reported in 2004(2) SCC 76, the Apex Court reiterated the legal position and held that "...An order against the person without impleading him as a party and without giving an opportunity or hearing must be held to be bad in law. The appellants herein, keeping in view of the fact that by reason of the impugned direction, the orders of promotion effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn, indisputably, were necessary parties. In their absence, therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon. In the absence of the 'promotees' as parties, therefore, it was not permissible for the High Court to issue the directions by reason of the impugned judgment." 3. Further perusal of the impugned order shows that seniority has been considered with reference to the date of regularisation, in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. According to the respondents, when secondary grade teachers are regularised on the same day, one who is older would be placed at the top of the list. Having regard to the date of birth of Smt. P.Jayalakshmi, she was placed above the petitioner in the seniority of B.T. Assistants/Tamil Pandits. I find no illegality in the order of seniority, as the respondents have taken the age factor as the criteria for fixing up the seniority. 4. For the above said reasons, I do not find that there is any manifest illegality in the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 29.06.2009 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No aes To 1.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai-6. 2.The Chief Educational officer, Dindigal. 3.The District Educational officer, Dindigal. 4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Palani Town, Palani. S.MANIKUMAR,J. Aes/ skm W.P.No.39133 of 2006 29.6.2009