M. Vignesh vs. N. Vadivel

ITEM NO.1711 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 28728/2019

S. SELVAKUMAR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

P. SHANMUGANATHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

(ONLY SLP(C) NO. 29486/2019 TO BE LISTED BEFORE HON'BLE JUDGE (IN CHAMBER)

WITH SLP(C) No. 29486/2019 (XII) (FOR impleading party ON IA 93129/2021 IA No. 64705/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 64700/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 93129/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)

Date : 03-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA [IN CHAMBERS]

For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Scv Vimal Pani, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR

• Mr. Sabarish Subramaniam, Adv.
• Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnam, Adv.
• Mr. P. Shankar, Adv.
• Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv.
• Ms. Shivani Jena, Adv.
• Mr. C. Kranti Kumar, Adv.
• Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv. Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv.
• Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Promila, AOR
• Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

IA No. 93129 of 2021

By this application, the applicant G. Laxman and Vir Swaminathan have sought impleadment as petitioner in special leave petition (c) D. No. 8976 of 2018.

A counter affidavit has been filed to this application claiming that the applicants were not party in the writ proceedings before the High Court. The seniority list was published on 04.05.2009. A challenge to it was dismissed by Single Judge Bench of the High Court vide order dated 06.04.2011 where after the intra-court appeal was also disposed of by the division bench of the High Court vide order dated 31.08.2016 against which this special leave petition has been pending since 09.03.2018. It is the case of the respondents that the seniority list was never challenged by the applicants, and therefore, they cannot be allowed to be impleaded as petitioner in special leave petition.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the High Court deals with inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees; any decision in the matter would have wide ramifications. Consequently, it would be appropriate that the applicants be allowed to be impleaded and pursue their cause.

As the applicants have not questioned the seniority list which was published sometimes in the year 2009 and chose to remain silent whilst the matter had been pending before the High Court since 2009 and this court since 2018, it is too late in the day to allow the applicants to be impleaded as petitioners.

2

The application being IA No. 93129 of 2021 is, accordingly, rejected.

IA No. 64700 of 2022 and IA No. 64705 of 2022

These two applications have been filed by Tamily Nadu Commercial Tax Department Retired Officials and Employees Welfare Association through their secretary for impleadment as party respondent in special leave petition (C) No. 29486 of 2019.

The applications are being opposed on the ground that there is no proper disclosure in the application regarding formation of the association as also whether the association is authorized to represent the cause of its members and how its members are likely to be affected by the decision in the pending special leave petition.

The learned counsel for the applicant consequently prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file a better affidavit.

List the matter after four weeks.

(KRITIKA TIWARI) (RAVINDER KUMAR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

3