J. JOSE DHANAPAUL
A
v.
S. THOMAS AND ORS.
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.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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
E
F
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.
..
Lex