,,
M. SELV ANA THAN AND ANR. ETC.
v.
THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC.
FEBRUARY 11, 2005
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]
Service law :
A
B
Resen,ation--Claimed by migrant Scheduled Caste candidates-Held, C
for reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998* etc. these appeals are
allowed.
*S. Pushpa and Ors. v. Sivachanmughave/ue and Ors., [2005] 1 SCR
1158, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1381-82 of
2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2002 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. Nos. 8279 and 8280 of 1998.
AND
C.A. No. 1383 of 2004.
V. Prabhakar, C.U. Sunanithni, R.S. Krishan Kumar and M.K.D.
D
E
Namboodiri for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 1381-82/2004.
F
S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Ms. Srikala, G.K. and S.R. Setia for the Appellant
in C.A. No. 1383/2004
M.N. Rao, V.R. Reddy, R. Venkataramani, T.S. Doabia, M.A.
Chinnaswamy, V.G. Pragasam, V. Balachandran, Naveen, R. Nath, Ms. Lalit G
Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ashok Panigrahi, V.K.
Verma, S.N. Terdal and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) 2 S.C.R.
A
G.P. MATHUR, J. The issue involved in these appeals is similar to
that of Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of l 998. In
these cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal had allowed the O.A. flied
by some of the respondents following· its earlier judgment and order dated
5.11.1996 given in O.A. No. 199/1996 and 0.A. No. 214/1996 and the writ
B petition filed by the appellants challenging the said ord.er was dismissed by
the Madras High Court.
c
For the reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 etc. these
appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside.
R.P.
Appeals allowed.
.. r
Lex