Supreme Court of India

J. JOSE DHANAPAULversusS. THOMAS AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 271
Decided: 16 February 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The tribunal committed a grave error of law by annulling the appointment without impleading the appellant, and the impugned order is set aside as regards the appellant.

Summary

The appellant, J. Jose Dhanapoul, challenged an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal that annulled the appointment of S. Thomas without the appellant being made a party to the proceedings. The Tribunal had issued the impugned order on June 15, 1993, cancelling Thomas's appointment, but the appellant was neither served nor given an opportunity to be heard. The appellant argued that this violated principles of natural justice and amounted to a grave error of law. The Supreme Court held that a tribunal cannot set aside an appointment without impleading the affected person, and therefore set aside the order as it pertained to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a tribunal can annul an appointment without the affected person being impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

Subjects

appointmentadministrative tribunalservice lawnatural justiceimpleaderannulmentprocedural error

Judgment

                         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.
                                                                               E
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.

        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
                                                                               F
        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
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.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "appointment"Sign in to search