http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: S. JAFFAR SAHIB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, A.P.P.S.C. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave is  directed against the order  of   the  Andhra   Pradesh  AdmInistrative   Tribunal dismissing the  appellant’s application  registered as  O.A. No. 40498  of 1990  and  the  order  dismissing  the  review application filed  by the  appellant which was registered as M.A. No. 2191 of 1994 by order dated 24th August, 1994.      The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has issued  an advertisement  for the  20 posts  in Group  I services  in   the  cadre   of  Deputy   Collector  for  the recruitment  year  1980-81  by  a  Notification  dated  28th January, 1980.  The appellant who was qualified and eligible to  apply  for  the  same,  appeared  at  the  written  test conducted by the Public Service Commission and also appeared in the  interview which  was held  on 19th January, 1981. It was decided  to fill-up  10 posts of Deputy Collector out of which two  posts were  meant for  Scheduled Castes,  one for Backward Class  Group ’A’  and two  for Backward Class Group ’D’ and  rest 5  for candidates  from open  competition. The appellant belong  to the last category whereas respondents 4 to 9  belong to the Backward Classes category. The appellant challening the  appointment of the respondents on the ground that in  making  the  appointment  the  concerned  authority violated the  provisions of the Rules of Reservations and in fact appointed  persons from reserved category more than the percentage of reservation meant, filed an application in the Nadir Prates Administrative Tribunal which was registered as R.P. No. 6652. The Tribunal, however, did not interfere with the appointments  made in  the year  1981 on  the ground  of latches on  the  part  of  the  appellant  to  approach  the Tribunal  but   observed  that  the  representation  of  the appellant may  be considered  for any  future  vacancy.  The appellant thereafter  made a  representation to  the  Public Service Commission  and the  Commission  rejected  the  same holding  that   the  Comission  has  no  power  to  consider anybody’s application on compassionate ground. The appellant then filed  a fresh  petition before  the Tribunal which was registered  as   O.A.  No.   40498  of  1990  and  the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

application was  dismissed by  Tribunal  on  the  ground  of latches taking  into account  the fact that a selection made as early  as in the year 1980 cannot be annulled in the year 1994 when the application challenging the said selection was filed as  late as  in 1990.  The appellant  then  filled  an application for  review and  the review  application  having been rejected by the impugned order dated 24th August, 1994, has approached this Court.      The appellant  appeared in  person in  this  Court  and contended that  appointments having  been   made contrary to the Rules  of  Reservations,  the    said  appointments  are invalid and  inoperative. The     appellant’s  right  to  be appointed was illegally  taken away and therefore this Court should annul   the appointment of the respondents forthright and   direct reconsideration of the appellant’s appointment. We are  unable to  accept this   contention  at this belated stage. As  has been  stated earlier the appellant challenged the  appointment of the respondents before the Tribunal in the  year 1987  and the  Tribunal did not interfere  with the appointments  made in  the year 1981 and the  said order became final  not being  challenged in any higher court. The appellant then  filed second   round of petition in the year 1990 which  was   rejected by  the Tribunal on the ground of latches  and the application for review stood dismissed on the ground  that there  is no  error of  law apparent on the face of the order which can be reviewed by  the Tribunal. On the admitted  facts that   appointment of respondents to the post of  Deputy Collector  was made  in the  year  1981,  an application   before the Tribunal in the year 1990 could not have been  entertained after  lapse of  9 years. Then  again there is  an additional  hurdle on the part of the appellant namely  affected   persons  are  not  made  parties  to  the proceedings. It  is too well settled that without impleading a person  as a  party whose  rights would  be  affected,  no Court/Tribunal can  pass  any  order  against  him.  In  the aforesaid  premises   we  find   no  justification  for  our interference under  Article 136 of the Constitution with the impugned order  of the  Tribunal. The  appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.