Harish Kumar Pal and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The respondents issued a seniority list of Accountants in the year, 2002. The seniority list was assailed by the petitioners through Writ Petition (SB) No. 529 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter keeping in mind the claim raised by the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid seniority list which was issued in the year, 2002 stands corrected in 2009. The petitioners have not disputed the seniority list finalized in the year, 2009.

Promotion from the cadre of Accountants is to the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers. The seniority list of 2002 would therefore regulate the promotion of the Sub-Treasury Officer. By an order dated 6.8.2002 persons some of whom were junior to the petitioners were promoted as Sub-Treasury Officers on the basis of the seniority list of 2002. This according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners has now to be rectified in terms of the seniority list issued in 2009.

It is also pointed out that the seniority in the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers is regulated by the Uttarakhand Treasury Subordinate Services Rules, 2003 wherein the relevant rules stipulate that seniority in the cadre of Accountants will be maintained in the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officer when an individual is promoted from the cadre of the Accountants to the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers. It is pointed out that the seniority list of Sub-Treasury Officers was finalized in the year, 2003. But, based on the revised seniority list of Accountants, the same ought to have been revised keeping in view the rule referred to. However, that according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been done.

Additionally, it is pointed out that on the basis of the seniority list of Sub-Treasury Officers issued in 2003, further promotions have been made to the Treasury Officers. This again according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in violation of the statutory rule referred to hereinabove.

At the commencement of hearing of this case, we required learned Counsel for the petitioners to inform us whether the persons liable to be affected (in case the prayers made in the instant writ petition were to be accepted) have been impleaded as party respondents. In response to which, he informed us that he is only seeking a formal amendment as per the finalised position expressed by the respondents themselves in the seniority list issued in 2009, and as such, it is not necessary to implead the affected persons as party respondents. We are satisfied that the instant submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is wholly unjustified. The petitioners have failed to impleaed the affected parties as party respondents. Accordingly the instant writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, and as such, is liable to be dismissed, for this reason itself. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

In addition to the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioners have raised a grievance of improper finalization of the seniority in the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officer, as also, the promotion of their juniors without considering their own claim. These issues can be agitated by the petitioners before the State Public Services Tribunal. It is, therefore, apparent that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, in respect of the cause of action agitated by the petitioners through the instant writ petition. The petitioners, if they are so advised, may therefore, approach the State Public Services Tribunal for redressal of the grievances.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed.