Supreme Court of India
J. JOSE DHANAPAUL versus S. THOMAS AND ORS. on 16 February 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J. JOSE DHANAPAUL
v.
S. THOMAS AND ORS.
A
FEBRUARY 16, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK JJ.)
B
Se1vice Law:
Appointment-Annulled by the Tlibunal without that person being impleaded as a pmty-Order set aside as regards that person-Tribunal C committed grave e1ror of law-Practice and procedure.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3610 of
1996.
From the Judgment and order dated 15.6.93 of the Tamil Nadu D Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 2199 of 1992.
Dr. A.F. Julian and A. Mariarputham for the Appellant.
KR. Nagaraja for the Respondents.
E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
F
It appears that the appointment of the first respondent was annulled by the proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. No. 727/93. Conse-quently, 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 G to his client to take such action as is warranted under law.
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 H 757
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. A 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. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
B G.N.
Appeal allowed.