HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 1504 of 2006
Kanjeera Parveen
...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, Ambikapur
3. Chief Executive Officer
4. Chief Executive Officer
5. Block Education Officer
6. Gram Panchayat Jigdi
7. S.D.O. Ambikapur
8. Nasrin Bano
...Respondents
! Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan
^ Shri Alok Bakshi
Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:09/04/2008
: Judgment
ORDER
(Passed on 9-4-2008 )
By this petition, the petitioner impugns the
validity of the order dated 20-2-2006 (Annexure P/18)
passed by the Collector, Surguja, in Case No. 13/A-89/2004-
2005 (Nasrin Bano Vs. Gram Panchayat, Jigdi and others),
whereby the application of the petitioner for intervention
/ impleadment was rejected holding that since the case
does not involve the property or land dispute, therefore,
it was not necessary to implead the petitioner as
intervener
2) The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner
applied for appointment on the post of Urdu Contract
Teacher, Class III (woman), in Janpad Panchayat Rajpur,
Gram Panchayat Jigdi, Rajpur, pursuant to an advertisement
dated 3-10-2003 and participated in the interview held on
17-2-2004 (Annexure P-1). The selection process was
conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. According to the
petitioner, despite the fact that the respondent No.8 did
not participate in the selection process including
interview, the respondent No.8 was appointed on 5-8-2004 as
Urdu Contract Teacher (Annexure P/9/). Being aggrieved,
the petitioner made a complaint before the Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur. The Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur, cancelled the
appointment of the respondent No.8 on 8-9-2004
(Annexure P/10).
3) Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.8 preferred an
appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur. The
Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, dismissed the appeal
on 26-5-2005 (Annexure P/12) holding that the appointment
of the respondent No.8 was not in accordance with law.
Thus, the order dated 8-9-2004 (Annexure P/10) passed by
the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur, was
confirmed. Further, being aggrieved, the respondent No.8
preferred an appeal before the Collector, Ambikapur on 14-7-
2005 (Annexure P/13). The respondent No.8 did not implead
the petitioner as necessary party before the Sub Divisional
officer, Ambikapur, as well as before the Collector,
Ambikapur, in appeal. The petitioner accordingly filed an
application on 18-7-2005 (Annexure P/16) before the
Collector, Ambikapur, for permission to intervene in the
matter being necessary party to the dispute. The
Collector, Ambikapur, dismissed the application of the
petitioner on unsustainable ground that the dispute does
not pertain to the property or land, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to intervene in the matter.
4) Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed
in limine, without considering the fact that by the order
passed by the Collector, Ambikapur, the petitioner would be
substantially affected as she alone took participation in
the selection process and on cancellation of the
appointment of the respondent No.8, the petitioner alone
is to be appointed. The petitioner is a necessary party
to the dispute. The Collector, Ambikapur, ought to have
considered the application for intervention and impleadment
as necessary party. Rejection of the application on the
ground that in case of property dispute alone, the
petitioner could be impleaded or allowed to intervene in
the matter, was erroneous. In all the matters where the
party is substantially affected by a decision of the
Tribunal/Court, the party should be impleaded as necessary
party.
5) Learned counsel for the State submits that the
reasons for not permitting the petitioner to intervene in
the matter as being necessary party, is not sustainable in
law.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is a
clear case wherein the petitioner was a candidate in the
selection process and if it is found that the petitioner
alone has participated in the selection process, the
petitioner may be entitled to benefit pursuant to the
decision of the Collector, Ambikapur.
7) In the matter of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs.
Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another1,
the Supreme Court observed as under:
“(7) To answer the question raised it
would be convenient at the outset to
ascertain who are necessary or proper
parties in a proceeding. The law on the
subject is well settled ; it is enough if
we state the principle. A necessary party
is one without whom no order can be made
effectively; a proper party is one in
whose absence an effective order can be
made but whose presence is necessary for a
complete and final decision on the
question involved in the proceeding.
(12) To summarise in a writ of certiorari
not only the tribunal or authority whose
order is sought to be quashed but also
parties in whose favour the said order is
issued are necessary parties. But it is
in the discretion of the court to add or
implead proper parties for completely
settling all the questions that may be
involved in the controversy either suo
moto or on the application of a party to
the writ or an application filed at the
instance of such proper party.”
8) In the matter of K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala
and others2, the Supreme Court in para 75 observed as
under:
“It was, therefore, imperative that all
the candidates in the select list should
have been impleaded as parties to be writ
petitions as otherwise they will be
affected without being heard.”
9) In the matter of K.M. Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public
Service Commission and others3, the Supreme Court observed
as under.
“15. In the aforementioned situation, all
the seventeen selected candidates were
necessary parties in the writ petition.
The number of selected candidates was not
large. There was no difficulty for the
appellant to implead them as parties in
the said proceedings. The result of the
writ petition could have affected the
appointees. They were, thus, necessary
and/or in any event proper parties.”
10) Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the
case, it is held that the petitioner is a necessary party,
the petitioner shall be impleaded in appeal pending before
the Collector, Ambikapur. Any order passed without
impleading the petitioner as party respondent, may affect
the petitioner substantially.
11) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20-2-2006
(Annexure P/18) is quashed. The Collector, Ambikapur, is
directed to proceed with the adjudication of the dispute
after impleading the petitioner as a party respondent .
12) The petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto
costs.
JUDGE