The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging placement in a seniority list. The court held it could not be heard because necessary parties were not served. Rule was discharged due to lack of service.
Rule discharged, petition disposed of with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1328 OF 1998
Shri Ramchandran Iyer and ors.
...Petitioners
v/s
Indian Airlines Ltd. and others...Respondents
Mr N.M. Ganguli for Petitioner.
Mr S.K. Talsania, Sr. Counsel with Mr Abhay Kulkarni
i/b M/s Bhasin and Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr Y.R. Mishra with Mr H.K. Vardhan and Mr V.B.
Tiwari for Respondent Nos.5.
CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ.
DATE : 20TH AUGUST 2009.
2
P.C. :-
1]The petitioners, by this petition,
challenge their placement in the seniority list and
they claim that they should have been placed above
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the seniority list.
When we found that there is nothing on record to
show that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are served
with rule nisi, office report was called for. It
has been submitted. It states thus :-
�After verifying the record it reflects
that the Advocate for the petitioners has
not taken steps to lodge draft of rule nisi
for service upon the respondent Nos.3 and
4. Hence rule nisi is not issued and the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have waived service
of rule.�
We find from the record that the respondent
Nos.3 and 4 who are necessary parties have not been
served. In the absence of respondent Nos.3 and 4,
3
this petition cannot be heard. The learned counsel
appearing for petitioners contended that he has a
document which shows that rule nisi has been issued
to respondent No.4. But we have nothing before us
to show that the respondent No.4 has been served.
In any case, we have nothing to show that even an
attempt has been made to serve the respondent Nos.3
and 4. By prayer clause (b), the petitioners are
claiming placement in the seniority list above the
respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, no relief can be
granted in this petition. Petition is disposed off,
rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
Parties to act on the copy of this order
duly authenticated by the Associate / Private
Secretary of this Court.
Certified copy expedited.
( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )
( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be heard in the absence of necessary parties resp. nos.3 and 4 who have not been served.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to placement above respondent nos.3 and 4 in the seniority list when service is incomplete.
Whether the rule nisi has been properly served upon respondent no.4.
Shri Ramchandran Iyer and ors.
Indian Airlines Ltd.
D.K. Deshmukh
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court