J. Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3610 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14103 of 1993)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14103 of 1993)
Petitioner: J. Jose Dhanapaul
Respondent: S. Thomas & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3610 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14103 of 1993)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14103 of 1993)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 16, 1996
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Practice and Procedure
Service law – Appointment – Without being impleaded as a party, the Administrative Tribunal annulled the appointment of ‘T’, the ~4~ Held that the Tribunal committed grave error of law in upsetting his appointment when he was not made a party – The impugned order set aside as regards the appellant.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. It appears that the appointment of the first respondent was annulled by the proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. NO.727/93. Consequently, Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the first respondent states that his client has lost interest in this matter since a fresh cause of action has arisen. He is not contesting the matter in this case since it would be open to his client to take such action as is warranted under law.
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was not a party to the impugned order dated June 15, 1993 made in O.A. No.2199/92 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras. Without being impleaded as a party, appointment of Thomas was annulled by the impugned order. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed grave error of law in upsetting his appointment when he was not made a party. The impugned order is set aside as regards the appellant.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. It appears that the appointment of the first respondent was annulled by the proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. NO.727/93. Consequently, Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the first respondent states that his client has lost interest in this matter since a fresh cause of action has arisen. He is not contesting the matter in this case since it would be open to his client to take such action as is warranted under law.
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was not a party to the impugned order dated June 15, 1993 made in O.A. No.2199/92 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras. Without being impleaded as a party, appointment of Thomas was annulled by the impugned order. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed grave error of law in upsetting his appointment when he was not made a party. The impugned order is set aside as regards the appellant.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
