Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with interlocutory applications filed by Indian Police Service officers seeking impleadment in special leave petitions arising from a Delhi High Court judgment. The underlying dispute pertained to recruitment rules and cadre review for Group A officers of five Central Armed Police Forces, where the officers had challenged the filling of additional posts through deputation and sought amendments to promote promotion-only appointments upto the Senior Administrative Grade. The High Court had disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training to review recruitment rules and conduct cadre review, with specific timelines. The IPS applicants, fearing that their deputation posts might be diluted if the petitioners' plea was accepted, applied for impleadment. The petitioners resisted, arguing that except for one officer currently on deputation, the applicants were not posted in CAPFs, not empanelled for central deputation, and lacked any vested legal right. The court considered arguments from both sides, including references to constitutional provisions under Article 312 and case law on necessary parties. In its analysis, the court emphasized that for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a direct legal interest or prejudice must be shown. It found that the applicants, being mostly not on deputation or empanelled, did not have such an interest, and their apprehension of career impact was insufficient. The court also noted that the High Court had heard counsel for IPS officers despite not allowing impleadment. Relying on principles from cited precedents, the court concluded that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment applications, allowing the special leave petitions to proceed without their addition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Necessary and Proper Parties - Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - IPS officers sought impleadment in SLPs concerning CAPF recruitment rules, fearing dilution of deputation posts - Court held applicants lacked direct legal interest as only one was currently on deputation and others not empanelled, thus not necessary or proper parties - Impleadment applications dismissed (Paras 4-7).
B) Constitutional Law - All-India Services - Deputation Rights - Article 312 Constitution of India - Applicants argued deputation integral to constitutional scheme under Article 312 and IPS Cadre Rules, 1954 - Court acknowledged but found no vested legal right created for applicants in absence of empanelment or current deputation - Held that potential career impact insufficient for impleadment (Paras 5-6).
C) Administrative Law - Recruitment Rules - Cadre Review - Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandums - Dispute involved filling of CAPF posts per existing Recruitment Rules and amendment sought for promotion-only upto SAG - High Court directed review of Recruitment Rules and cadre review by specified dates - Supreme Court considered impleadment in context of these directions (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants (IPS officers) are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded in the special leave petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgment on recruitment rules and cadre review of Central Armed Police Forces
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory applications for impleadment, holding that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties
Law Points
- Impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- requires demonstration of direct legal interest or prejudice
- deputationists or potential deputationists do not have vested legal right to posts
- constitutional scheme under Article 312 of Constitution of India includes deputation
- principles of necessary and proper parties from case law
Case Details
Interlocutory Application No. 16706 of 2021 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 12158 of 2020, with Interlocutory Application No.11014 of 2021 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12505 of 2020, with Interlocutory Application No.11786 of 2021 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12503 of 2020, with Interlocutory Application No.7477 of 2021 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12466 of 2020, with Interlocutory Application No.11026 of 2021 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12570 of 2020
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Interlocutory applications for impleadment in special leave petitions challenging Delhi High Court judgment on recruitment rules and cadre review of Central Armed Police Forces
Remedy Sought
IPS officers applying for impleadment to protect their interest in deputation posts in CAPFs
Filing Reason
Apprehension that posts in CAPFs kept for deputation by IPS officers might get diluted if petitioners' plea for promotion-only appointments is accepted
Previous Decisions
Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions by directing review of Recruitment Rules and cadre review, with impleadment applications of IPS officers not allowed but their counsel heard
Issues
Whether the applicants (IPS officers) are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded in the special leave petitions
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued deputation integral under Article 312 and IPS Cadre Rules, impacting career prospects
Petitioners resisted impleadment on grounds applicants not posted in CAPFs except one, not empanelled, and lack vested legal right
Ratio Decidendi
For impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, a direct legal interest or prejudice must be demonstrated; deputationists or potential deputationists without current posting or empanelment do not have such interest and are not necessary or proper parties
Judgment Excerpts
“These five petitions, by personnel of different services viz. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force(BSF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Indo Tibetan Border Police(ITBP), and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), collectively known as Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), (i)impugn the direction of each of the said services, for filling up of the additional posts created pursuant to the Cadre Review (CR)of the year 2016, as per existing Recruitment Rules (RRs), which provide for certain percentage of posts at each level upto Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) being filled up by deputation; and, (ii) seek mandamus directing the respondents to amend the RRs of each service, by including various attributes, as required by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums (OMs)dated 20 th November, 2009, 15 th December, 2009, 24 th March 2009, 24 th April 2009 and 8 th May, 2018, particularly to the extent provide for all posts upto SAG level being filled up by promotion only and not by deputation, and to thereafter conduct CR of Group ‘A’ Officers of each cadre, by treating each service as Organised Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS), as held by this Court in G.J.Singh Vs. Union of India 2015 SCC online Del 11803 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harananda (2019) 14 SCC 126.”
“The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh Case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh’s petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh’s writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.”
Procedural History
Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions with directions for review of Recruitment Rules and cadre review; special leave petitions filed in Supreme Court; IPS officers filed interlocutory applications for impleadment; Supreme Court heard arguments and dismissed applications
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10
- Constitution of India: Article 312
- IPS (Cadre Rules), 1954:
