Jose Dhanapaul. Vs. S. Thomas & Ors  INSC 281 (16 February 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCC (3) 587 JT 1996 (3) 197 1996 SCALE (2) SP73
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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
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.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.