Judgment :- The 24 petitioners who were working as Sub-Registrars in various register offices in the State of Tamilnadu filed O.A.No.2981 of 1998 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to revise and publish a final seniority list of Sub-Registrar, Grade -II by duly applying the quota rota system in terms of Rule (6)(a) of the General Rules and Rule 2(c) of the Special Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Services and fix the seniority of the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, the existing seniority list containing 289 promotee Sub-Registrars were placed above the names of the petitioners and such an action was illegal. However, the petitioners impleaded one P. Anbazhagan as the fourth respondent to the Original Application. They also filed M.A.No.2804 of 1998 before the Tribunal to implead the fourth respondent in representative capacity representing the interest of all the similarly placed persons whose names are in the seniority list dated 28.06.1997. In the application, the provision of law under which the said application was filed before the Tribunal was not indicated. However, the Tribunal merely recorded that the petitioners will make a paper publication and file the proof of the same. Accordingly, paper publication was effected and on filing the said paper publication, the miscellaneous application was allowed. During the pendency of the Original Application, the petitioners did not have the benefit of any interim order. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.33045 of 2006. 4. When a question was posed to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as to how such an application was ordered by the Tribunal in the absence of any Rule akin to Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C found in the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as well as the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunals Rules framed by the State Government and also Rule 2(b) framed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Senior Counsel merely stated that since the Tribunal was a substitute of the High Court, all the Rules available to the High Court will also be available and since the Tribunal has allowed their application, it must be stated that all the affected parties are deemed to have notice on the original application. Such a contention is unwarranted. 5. Such a contention is unwarranted. 5. However, Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by a Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Malalaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2006) 3 M.L.J. 161(S.C.). Before going into the merits of the dispute, unless the affected parties are served in the manner known to law, this Court is not inclined to hear the writ petition. 6. In this context, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel was drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 . In paragraph 28 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:- "28. 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 nonjoinder of necessary parties." 7. However, the learned counsel stated that Prabodh Vermas case has been subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Madan Mohan Joshi and Others reported in (2008) 6 SCC 797 . In the said judgment, there is no disagreement with Prabodh Vermas case. On the contrary, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the directions contained in Prabodh Vermas case and also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Janardhana v. Union of India reported in (1983) 3 SCC 601 . In paragraph 18, it was observed as follows: "18. Reliance placed on A. Janardhana by Mr. Garg, in our opinion, is misplaced. Therein, no relief was claimed against any individual. The only relief which was claimed therein was against the Union of India. The question which was raised therein was a question of interpretation. It was in the aforementioned situation, this Court held that all the employees were not required to be impleaded as a party. In that case, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented. It was stated:(SCC pp.625-26, para 36) "36. ...In this case, the appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents." 8. Therefore, there is no gainsaying that Prabodh Vermas case has been either whittled down or any way dissented from. It must also be noted that the Supreme Court subsequently vide its Judgment in Suresh v. Yeotmal District Central Cooperative Bank Limited reported in 2008 12 SCC 558 has held that in case of challenge to seniority, if there are non-joinder of parties, the dispute cannot be adjudicated and attention was drawn to Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. 9. It must also be noted that the Supreme Court subsequently vide its Judgment in Suresh v. Yeotmal District Central Cooperative Bank Limited reported in 2008 12 SCC 558 has held that in case of challenge to seniority, if there are non-joinder of parties, the dispute cannot be adjudicated and attention was drawn to Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. 9. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2009 1 SCC 768 has categorically held that affected parties must be impleaded in case of challenge to any appointment otherwise there should not be any adjudication of such issue by the Court. 10. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that he is willing to make an application at this juncture and the Court may order such application in the interest of justice. However, it must be noted that the seniority list for which revision was sought for is of the year 1989. Even in the Original Application, Column No.5 regarding limitation, the petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay in coming to the Court over the said issue. The Original Application which was filed in the year 1998 came to be transferred to this Court in the year 2006. Even then no attempts were made by the petitioner to serve the affected parties in the manner known to law. We are now in the tail end of 2009. At this stage, a seniority controversy which was 20 years old cannot be allowed to be reopened only on the plea that the petitioners are now willing to serve all the affected parties. If a seniority list, which was settled was not disturbed within a reasonable period, must be emphasised that parties must have had their own position guaranteed and would have worked out their rights in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the request of the learned Senior Counsel to make an application at the 11th hour cannot be permitted. 11. In the light of the above, without going into the merits of the controversies raised herein, the writ petition is dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. However, the parties will be allowed to bear their own costs.