http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: J. JOSE DHANAPAUL.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S. THOMAS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 587        JT 1996 (3)   197  1996 SCALE  (2)SP73

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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. 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.      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.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.