Case: SANJAY PRAKASH &amp; ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS

any challenge to a particular qualification of any individual candidate rather their challenge was that without scrutiny large number of candidates, who were claiming qualification equivalent to CCC Certificate have been included without there being any scrutiny and without they fulfilling the qualification. The case of the writ petitioners was that the computer certificate issued by the private organisations and unregistered societies, who neither were recognised by the State Government or the Central Government or by any statutory body could not issue any certificate. We may further notice that the Division Bench also noticed the above argument of non-impleadment of all the selected candidates in the writ petition but the Division Bench has not based its judgment on the above argument. When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process, the aggrieved parties can complain and in such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted. Furthermore, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the nature of the challenge, which was levelled in the writ petition. Moreover, few selected candidates were also impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity. 8. While dealing with the present set of applications, I am not examining the legality of the judgment assailed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The applicants have approached this Court for being heard on the conflict points involved in these petitions. Thus the question I will have to examine is as to whether they can be given access to this set of petitions as parties. I shall be addressing only the plea for impleadment or intervention of the applicants. 9. In the event the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal are allowed and the plea of the petitioners for excluding deputationists from the senior administrative posts of the respective CAPFs eventually come to be accepted, it would obviously have an impact on the upper reaches of the service avenues of the IPS officers. The prayers made in SLP(C) No. 12158 of 2020 is quoted below for proper understanding of the scope of the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal:- Main Prayer It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to: a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal to the petitioner against the impugned judgment and final order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 12751/2019; and b) Pass any other and further order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayers for Interim Relief: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. Grant stay of appointment of persons by way of deputation to any of the cadre posts of CISF Group A Executive Cadre; b. Grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the impugned judgment and final order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 12751/2019; and c. Pass any other and further order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similar are the prayers in the other petitions for special leave to appeal. Before the High Court, the petitioners had mainly relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs Harananda [(2019) 14 SCC 126] . In this judgment, inter-alia, it was held that Railway Protection Force was to be constituted as Organised Group A Civil Service. 10. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the applicants are not necessary or proper parties in this set of proceedings. The petitioners are seeking directions for amendments of a set of existing Rules and office memoranda, which provide for, inter-alia, filling up of certain percentage of senior administrative grade posts by deputation. Relief is sought here against the concerned arm of the Union Government over framing of service rules that would have the effect of, among other change in service structure, entail IPS officers from holding the senior positions of the respective Forces on deputation. But as I have already observed, by filing these applications, the applicants are volunteering their participation in these petitions to highlight their grievances. Thus the ratio of A. Janardhana (supra), which dealt with the aspects of leaving out a set of persons from whose interest could be affected by the outcome of a case, cannot be applied in this set of proceedings. The applicants claim for entry to these proceedings is founded on their possibility of being engaged on deputation to the senior administrative posts of CAPFs being adversely affected. Objections to their presence in these proceedings are mainly on two grounds. First is that the petitioners are questioning certain actions of the Government pertaining to clogging of promotional avenues of in-service officers of the CAPFs. In the event such plea of the petitioners is accepted by this Court, then the right of an IPS Officer to be in deputation will lapse or be largely impaired. Such deputation provisions do not originate from general principles of being placed on deputation, which is a recognized practise guiding organized services. Placing an IPS Officer on deputation in these Forces are integrally linked to the service rules of the respective Forces. Moreover, there is provision for deputation of IPS Officers as per the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954. Reference has been made to the schedule to Central Industrial Security Force (Group A Executive Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2002, Rule 13 of the SSB Rules, 2009, schedule to the Central Reserve Police Border Force Group A General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules and Section 12 of ITBP Act, 1992 and schedule to the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978. These instruments provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Prabodh Verma And Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[1984 (4) SCC 251 ] has been relied upon.In this Judgment, it has been, inter-alia held:-The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh Case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sanghs petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sanghs writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.6. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of A. Janardhana vs Union of India [1983 (3) SCC 601 ], though, in this case, a slightly different approach has been taken. It has been held in this authority:-It was contended that those members who have scored a march over the appellant in 1974 seniority list having not been impleaded as respondents, no relief can be given to the appellant. In the writ petition filed in the High Court, there were in all 418 respondents. Amongst them, first two were Union of India and Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, and the rest presumably must be those shown senior to the appellant. By an order made by the High Court, the names of Respondents 3 to 418 were deleted since notices could not be served on them on account of the difficulty in ascertaining their present addresses on their transfers subsequent to the filing of these petitions. However, it clearly appears that some direct recruits led by Mr Chitkara appeared through counsel Shri Murlidhar Rao and had made the submissions on behalf of the direct recruits. Further an application was made to this court by nine direct recruits led by Shri T. Sudhakar for being impleaded as parties, which application was granted and Mr P.R. Mridul, learned Senior Counsel appeared for them. Therefore, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented and the contention can be negatived on this short ground. However, there is a more cogent reason why we would not countenance this contention. In this case, appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents. We may in this connection refer to G.M., South Central Railway, Secundrabad v. A.V.R. Siddhanti. Repelling a contention on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in the case, this court observed that [SCC para 15, p. 341 : SCC (L&S) p. 296] the respondents (original petitioners) are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the court. Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by anyone individual against another particular individual and therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the respondents for this additional reason must also be negatived.8. While dealing with the present set of applications, I am not examining the legality of the judgment assailed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The applicants have approached this Court for being heard on the conflict points involved in these petitions.9. In the event the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal are allowed and the plea of the petitioners for excluding deputationists from the senior administrative posts of the respective CAPFs eventually come to be accepted, it would obviously have an impact on the upper reaches of the service avenues of the IPS officers.Similar are the prayers in the other petitions for special leave to appeal. Before the High Court, the petitioners had mainly relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs Harananda [(2019) 14 SCC 126] . In this judgment, inter-alia, it was held that Railway Protection Force was to be constituted as Organised Group A Civil Service.But as I have already observed, by filing these applications, the applicants are volunteering their participation in these petitions to highlight their grievances. Thus the ratio of A. Janardhana (supra), which dealt with the aspects of leaving out a set of persons from whose interest could be affected by the outcome of a case, cannot be applied in this set of proceedings. The applicants claim for entry to these proceedings is founded on their possibility of being engaged on deputation to the senior administrative posts of CAPFs being adversely affected. Objections to their presence in these proceedings are mainly on two grounds. First is that the petitioners are questioning certain actions of the Government pertaining to clogging of promotional avenues of in-service officers of the CAPFs. In the event such plea of the petitioners is accepted by this Court, then the right of an IPS Officer to be in deputation will lapse or be largely impaired. Such deputation provisions do not originate from general principles of being placed on deputation, which is a recognized practise guiding organized services. Placing an IPS Officer on deputation in these Forces are integrally linked to the service rules of the respective Forces. Moreover, there is provision for deputation of IPS Officers as per the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954. Reference has been made to the schedule to Central Industrial Security Force (Group A Executive Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2002, Rule 13 of the SSB Rules, 2009, schedule to the Central Reserve Police Border Force Group A General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules and Section 12 of ITBP Act, 1992 and schedule to the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978. These instruments provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs.12. Objection was made as regards as intervention of the Indian Police Service Central Association. The Association have not filed any application for impleadment or intervention before the High Court. I have referred to paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment in this regard. Their intervention was not allowed but they were heard. I further find from the judgment that they were actually heard. They have argued before me on the point of impleadment on the basis of having filed caveat application. But while as caveators they have the right of being notified of the lodging of the SLPs in terms of Clause 2 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, mere filing of caveat application cannot grant them an entry into a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. Filing of Caveat by itself does not entitle them to be treated as a party to the proceeding.