http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

K AJIT BABU AND OTHERS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/1997

BENCH:

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

V.N.KHARE J.

The short question that arises for consideration in

this appeal is whether the application filed by the

appellants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals

Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as the Act) could be

rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal as not

maintainable.

The facts giving rise to the question referred to above

are these:-

The establishment of the Chief Controller of Imports

and Exports is divided into four separate zones, viz.,

eastern western, southern and northern and the employee of

each of the said zones have combined seniority list. The

present appeal concerns the appellants working in the

western zone which comprises the establishments at Bombay,

Ahmedabad, Gandhidam, Rajkot, Bhopal and Goa. Each of the

zone comprises of posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper

Division Clerks, Section Heads, Controllers, etc (for short

LDCs, UDCs, etc.). The LDCs are the lowest category from

which the promotions are available to the post of udcs, from

which promotion is made as Licensing Assistants and

thereafter as Section Heads. From to post of Section Heads,

the employees are eligible to be promoted to the post of

Controllers. The seniority lists are maintained cadrewise.

The promotion to the post of UDC is made on the basis of

seniority roll, whereas promotion to Licensing Assistants,

Section Head and Controllers are made on the basis of

selection i.e. seniority-cum-merit. The appellant before us

were appointed as LDCs. In due course they wee promoted as

UDCs, Licensing Assistants, Section Heads and Controllers.

As Controllers they were promoted on ad-hoc basis. They

working in the western zone which is headed by the Joint

Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Subsequently, it

was found that some of the officers who were promoted and

were transferred in new offices were reluctant to join in

the new place of posting and as such, since the year 1978 a

policy was adopted for seeking options as to wether they are

ready to go on transfer in case they are promoted or they

would like to stay at the place of present posting foregoing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

their promotions. The officers who have given their options

to go out to new place of posting in case of promotion, they

were given promotions in preference to the claims of their

seniors.

In the year 1983, one PS Jhon and other who were

affected by the seniority list published on 13.10.81 and

were working at Ahmedabad filed a Civil Application No.

1533/83 before the Gujarat High Court making grievance that

the respondents never asked for their options for going to

the new place of posting in case of their promotions. The

said application was transferred to the Ahmedabd Bench of

the Central Administrative Tribunal where it was numbered as

Transfer Application No. 263/86. The Tribunal by its

judgment dated August 14, 1987 held that the promotion made

on the basis of options without resorting to the recruitment

rules in terms of quota laid down and the procedure for

filling it up is valid as long as it is ad-hoc and such ad-

hoc promotions do not deprive seniority of those who have

not given their options for going out to the new place of

posting. The tribunal was further of the view that the

employers are free to allow the juniors who have given their

options to continue to enjoy promotion on ad-hoc basis, but

the orders conferring regular promotions to such promotee

cannot be upheld in so far as it affects the seniority of

those who have not given their options. The officers who

have not given their options have the right to promotions in

their own turn of seniority. In view of the decision

rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal referred to

above, the respondents prepared and circulated four draft

seniority lists inviting objections, if any. Subsequently,

a number of review petitions were filed for reviewing the

judgment given by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 263/86, but the

said applications were rejected. After the review petitions

were rejected, the present appellants filed an application

under Section 19 of the Act before the Central

Administrative Tribuna, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad. Relying upon

a Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, in Jhon Lucas and

others vs. Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer decided on

2.11.87, the Tribunal held that the persons who were not a

party to a decision but are affected by the decision of the

tribunal are not entitled to file an application under

Section 19 of the Act, but can only file a review petition

seeking review of the decision adversely affecting them.

Consequently the appellants' application was rejected

summarily. The appellants have now come up to this Court.

As stated earlier, the appellant has challenged the

impugned seniority list prepared on the basis of the

decision rendered by the Cereal Administrative Tribunal,

Ahmedabad on Transfer Application No.263 of 1986 dated

14.8.1987, by means of an application under Section 19 of

the Act wherein there was no prayer for setting aside the

judgment dated 14.8.1987 of the Administrative Tribunal. It

is true that the judgment given by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in T.A. No.263/86 would

have come in the way of the appellant. Often in service

matters the judgments rendered either by the Tribunal or by

the Court also affect other persons, who are not parties to

the cases. It may help on class of employees and at the

same time adversely affect another class of employees. In

such circumstances the judgments of the courts or the

tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam

affecting only to the parties to the cases, they would be

judgments in rem. In such a situation, the question arises;

what remedy is available to such affected persons who are

not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

adversely affect to their rights in the matter of their

seniority. In the present case, the view taken by the

Tribunal that the only remedy available to the affected

persons is to file a Review of the judgment which affects

them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of

the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal

to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter

referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for

review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30

days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order

sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of review is

available only to those who are party to a case. However,

even if we give wider meaning to the expression "a person

feeling aggrieved" occurring in Section 22 of the Act

whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the

whole case decided by the Tribunal. The right of review is

no t a right of appeal where all questions decided are open

to challenge. The right of review is possible only on

limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of these Code of

Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of

the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the

tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have

to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the

power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no

certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the

right of review is available if such an application is filed

within the period of limitation. The decision given by the

Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains

finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no

decision is final, as the decision would be subject to

review at any time at the instance of party feeling

adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose

favour a decision has been given can not monitor the case

for all times to come. Public policy demands that there

should been to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is

accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an

end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is

available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground

mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if

filed within the period of limitation.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant

merely on the ground that the appellant was seeking setting

aside of the judgement rendered by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of P.S. John

(supra) in T.A. No.263/86. It is here that the Tribunal

apparently fell in error. No doubt the decision of the

tribunal in the case P.S. Jhon was against the appellant but

the application filed by the appellant under Section 19 of

the Act has to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Consistency, certainty and uniformity in the filed of

judicial decisions are considered to be the benefits arising

out of the "Doctrine of Precedent". The precedent sets a

pattern upon which a future conduct may be based. One of

the basic principles of administration of justice is, that

the cases should be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of

precedent is applicable to the Central Administrative

Tribunal also. Whenever an application under Section 19 of

the Act is filed and the question involved in the said

application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the

Tribunal, the Tribunal necessarily has to take into account

the judgment rendered in earlier case, as a precedent and

decide the application accordingly. The Tribunal may either

agree with the view taken in the earlier judgment or it may

dissent. If it dissents, then the matter can be referred to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

a larger bench/full bench and place the matter before the

Chairman for constituting a larger bench so that there may

be no conflict upon the two Benches. The large Bench, then,

has to consider the correctness of earlier decision in

disposing of the later application. The larger Bench can

over-rule the view taken in the earlier judgment and declare

the law, which would be binding on all the Benches (See Jhon

Lucas (supra). In the present case, what we find is that

tribunal rejected the application of the appellants thinking

that appellants are seeking setting aside of the decision of

the tribunal in Transfer Application No. 263 of 1986. This

view taken by the Tribunal was not correct. The application

of the appellant was required to be decided in accordance

with law.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the

Administrative Tribunal dated 14.8.1987 passed in O.A. No.

47 of 1990 is set aside and the case is sent back to the

Tribunal for decision on merits preferably within three

months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment.

The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.