Allowed

Seema v. Bimla Malik and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Mar 2011LPA/1628/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1628 of 2010, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant, who was a complainant next on the waiting list for a lecturer post and had successfully challenged an appointment, be joined as a party-respondent in the underlying writ petition to adjudicate her interests.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is permitted to join as a party-respondent in C.W.P. No.6789 of 2010; the office is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.

Seema Vs Bimla Malik and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

L.P.A. No. 1628 of 2010 9(O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision : March 16, 2011

Seema

….Appellant

Versus

Dr. Bimla Malik and others

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶10

Present : Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajjan Malik, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶15

The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant filed complaint against writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Bimla Malik. It was at her instance that orders dated 2.4.2010 (P.14), impugned in the writ petition filed by Dr. Bimla Malik have been passed by the Commissioner, Higher Education, Haryana. The aforesaid fact is revealed from the correspondence dated 28.10.2009 (P.15) as is evident from the endorsement of that communication stating that the same has been forwarded to the appellant It has also not been disputed that writ

¶16

L.P.A. No. 1628 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

petitioner/respondent No.1-Dr. Bimla Malik has been kept at serial No.1 by the selection committee for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Hindi whereas the name of the appellant figures at serial No.2. It was represented before the learned Single Judge that the appellant being the complainant and next in the waiting list would be proper and necessary party and, therefore, she should be permitted to join as a party-respondent in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution initiated by the writ petitioner-respondent No.1.

¶19

Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel for writ petitionerrespondent No.1 has opposed the submission made by the counsel for the appellant by stating that at various forums the appellant has failed and the certificate issued to writ petitioner-respondent No.1 were found to be genuine. However, it remained undisputed that the Commissioner, Higher Education eventually found some substance in the allegations made by the appellant, which has resulted in cancellation of her appointment. Mr. Malik, learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on an order dated 23.11.2010 passed by this Court in C.M. No.1662 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.10027 of 2009, wherein reference of C.M. No.11951 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.6789 of 2010 has been made.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the appellant is a proper and necessary party. The appellant was not only a complainant but she succeeded before the authorities in persuading them to pass order on 2.4.2010 (P.14), which is subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge at the instance of writ petitioner-respondent No.1. It has further come on record that she is next in merit to the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 and, therefore, her interest in the adjudication of the rights of writ petitioner-respondent No.1 is obvious. Accordingly, we feel that she deserves to join as a party respondent.

¶21

The reliance of Mr. Malik, learned senior counsel for the

¶22

L.P.A. No. 1628 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶23

writ petitioner-respondent No.1 on the order dated 23.11.2010 cannot be appreciated because the Division Bench has placed reliance on the order passed in Civil Misc. No.11951 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.6789 of 2010 for the purposes of the ratio of the judgment that if the controversy in a petition can be effectively decided in absence of the person who seeks to join as a party, then he would not be a necessary party. On a perusal of the detailed affidavit it has become clear that the appellant has interest in the adjudication of the rights of writ petitionerrespondent No.1 because it would vitally affect the rights of the appellant as well. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention.

¶24

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is permitted to join as a party-respondent in C.W.P. No.6789 of 2010. The office is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.

¶25

It is, however, made clear that any observation made in the preceding paras shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merit of the controversy.

¶26

All the pending civil miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.

¶27

( M.M. KUMAR )

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

March 16, 2011 satish

¶30

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Seema v. Bimla Malik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema v. Bimla Malik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Pal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Union of India Vs Mandeep Singh and Ors.

Davinder Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Basanti Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.