Judgment 1. The defendant Pepsu Road Transport Corporation is in appeal. It has lost before the learned first appellate court. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs Vinod Mehta, puran Chand, Sham Lal and Vijay Kumar, who were working as storekeepers with the defendant-Corporation. They claimed that the order dated August 31, 1995, passed by the Corporation, making promotions of certain Diesel Pump Clerks and Assistant Storekeepers to the post of senior assistant, was illegal, bad, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice. The plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to promotion as senior Assistants being senior to the persons who had been granted promotions. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court. They took up the matter in appeal before the learned first appellate court. 2. The learned appellate court specifically placed reliance upon the order Ex. P-2, whereby certain Assistant Storekeepers, who were shown junior to the plaintiffs in the seniority list Ex. P-5, were granted promotion. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it was held by the learned first appellate court that since the plaintiffs are senior to the persons, who had been promoted to the next higher post, therefore, they also had a right to be considered for promotion from the date when the persons junior to them, had been considered for promotion vide order dated August 31, 1995. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and their suit was decreed. During the course of the present appeal, an order dated July 13, 2004 was passed by the Managing Director of Pepsu Road Transport corporation, Patiala. Vide the aforesaid order Nasib Chand, Puran chand, pritam Singh, Sham Lal and Vijay Sood have been promoted as assistants with effect from October 15, 1979. On the passing of the aforesaid order of promotion, the learned counsel appearing for aforesaid plaintiffsrespondents made a statement that the claim of the aforesaid plaintiffs had been satisfied and they do not claim any further relief than what had been granted vide order dated July 13, 2004. Consequently, the appeal qua the aforesaid persons was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, vide order of this court dated November 25, 2005. 3. The appeal, thus, remains alive with regard to plaintiff Vinod mehta, only. Consequently, the appeal qua the aforesaid persons was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, vide order of this court dated November 25, 2005. 3. The appeal, thus, remains alive with regard to plaintiff Vinod mehta, only. I have heard Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Shri S. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. At this stage, it may be noticed that a civil miscellaneous application bearing no.1748-C of 2006 has been filed by Avtar Singh, satlesh Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Prem Das, who are working as senior Assistants with the Corporation. They have prayed for their impleadment as party-respondents in the present appeal. It has been claimed by them that the aforesaid applicants have challenged the order dated July 13, 2004 passed by the Corporation, whereby the promotions had been granted to nasib Chand, Puran Chand, Pritam Singh, Sham Lal and Vijay Sood, by filing writ petitions. It has also been averred in the application that the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No.13577 of 2004 and Civil Writ Petition no.3071 of 2005 are pending in this court. In these circumstances, a claim has been made that the aforesaid applicants have a right to be heard. It has also been claimed that the appellant-Corporation is going to finalise the seniority. 4. After hearing Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid applicants, I find absolutely no justification to implead the aforesaid persons as parties in the present appeal. The aforesaid persons are claiming independent rights while challenging the order dated July 13, 2004, passed by the Corporation. 5. It is apparent that promotions had been granted to the aforesaid persons vide order dated July 13, 2004. If the applicants have any grievance against the promotion of the aforesaid persons, then they also have their independent remedy which they have admittedly availed of by challenging the aforesaid promotions of the persons. In the present appeal, I am only concerned with the suit filed by the plaintiffs in which they had claimed that order dated August 31, 1995 is illegal, bad, null and void. The aforesaid applicants are neither necessary party nor even a proper party in the present appeal and at the stage of Regular Second Appeal, they can not be permitted to be so impleaded. 6. The aforesaid applicants are neither necessary party nor even a proper party in the present appeal and at the stage of Regular Second Appeal, they can not be permitted to be so impleaded. 6. Consequently, the prayer made in the present application is declined and the same is, consequently, dismissed. With regard to the merits of the controversy, a firm finding of fact has been recorded by the learned first appellate court, on perusal of ex. P-2 and P-5 that the persons junior to the plaintiffs had been promoted. 7. The only direction given by the learned first appellate court is that the plaintiffs shall also be considered for promotion from the date their juniors had been so promoted. Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation has argued that the plaintiffs could not be heard to claim any relief without impleading the persons who were so promoted. I am afraid the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel is without any force. The plaintiffs have claimed a simple relief that they were also entitled for promotion from the date their juniors were promoted. It is only this relief which had been granted by the learned first appellate court. 8. The aforesaid relief was only claimed against the Corporation. A direction was sought against the Corporation to consider the plaintiffs for promotion from the date their juniors had been so promoted. In these circumstances, i do not find any justification to hold that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court are erroneous in any manner or contrary to the record. 9. At this stage, it may also be noticed that an application for additional evidence has been filed by the Corporation to place on record the seniority list (Annexure A-1), at the stage of Regular Second Appeal. On the basis of aforesaid document, Shri Nehra has argued that in fact, seniority of Rajinder Kumar, which was reflected in the seniority list ex. P-5, was disputed inasmuch as there was one more Rajinder Kumar, who was senior to the plaintiffs. I am afraid the aforesaid request of the appellant-Corporation can not be accepted at this stage. The documents, which are now sought to be relied upon, were available with the Corporation even at the stage of trial. But the same were not produced at that stage. No justification, whatsoever, has been given for non-production of the said documents. I am afraid the aforesaid request of the appellant-Corporation can not be accepted at this stage. The documents, which are now sought to be relied upon, were available with the Corporation even at the stage of trial. But the same were not produced at that stage. No justification, whatsoever, has been given for non-production of the said documents. By mere perusal of the said documents, it can not be held that rajinder Kumar, referred to by the learned first appellate court was different than the one reflected in the seniority list. 10. One very important fact which must be noted is that Nasib chand, Puran Chand, Pritam Singh, Sham Lal and Vijay Sood have been promoted as Assistants with effect from October 15, 1979, vide order dated July 13, 2004. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid persons are junior to Vinod Mehta-plaintiff, who has not been so promoted. As per the order dated July 13, 2004 also, the case of Vinod Mehta, for consideration for promotion, is clearly made out. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal Dismissed. 11. Before parting with this judgment, it must be mentioned that the rights of the applicants filed in C. M. No.1748-C of 2006, in challenging the order dated July 13, 2004 shall not be affected by the dismissal of the present appeal. The aforesaid rights, if any, shall be enforceable by the aforesaid applicants in accordance with law, in independent proceedings.