Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, JJ.
Mohamed Sheek Alavudeen – Petitioner
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 301, 499 & 500 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 24-02-2015
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 4(1) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 - Rule 10 Central Administrative Tribunal Rules 1985 - Rule 12(2) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300 - Posts of Sub-Inspectors - Physical measurement test - Non-impalement of necessary parties – Claim of compensation - Government invited applications for filling up posts of Sub-Inspectors through a Notification - Recruitment process comprised of three stages - In first stage all candidates were required to take a physical measurement test - Those who qualified in test were to take a physical efficiency test and those who qualified in said test were invited for a written examination - Claiming that they had passed physical measurement and physical efficiency tests and that since written examination was conducted only in English they could not take exam or get selected contesting respondents herein filed applications challenging provisional select list - In those applications as they were originally filed unselected candidates imp leaded only two respondents namely Secretary to Government Department of Home and Superintendent of Police, Police Department - Selected candidates were not imp leaded as parties - Orders of appointment issued to selected candidates were also not challenged - Tribunal admitted original applications but did not grant any interim orders – Held, Keeping in view facts and circumstances of case Court are of opinion that High Court should have decided appellants application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and thereafter proceeded to hear appeal in question - Not having disposed of application under Order 1 Rule 10 has caused serious prejudice to appellant - Court therefore set aside judgment of High Court and restore Regular First Appeal to its file - High Court should first deal with application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which is pending before it and then proceed to dispose of appeal in accordance with law - Therefore it is clear that once original applicants have carried out an amendment making Union Territory as a party objection regarding non impalement cannot hold water - Administrative tribunal is a specialized forum constituted to redress grievances of persons falling under a special category - Therefore their cases should not be thrown out on mere technicalities unless they go to root of matter - Selected candidates did not raise this issue in first round of litigation when they came up with a batch of writ petitions challenging order of Tribunal allowing applications for amendment and impalement - Therefore they cannot be permitted to raise such technical objections piece meal - Next contention of counsel for petitioner that since Union of India was not imp leaded in first instance when original applications were filed impalement of necessary party after period of limitation was over would make applications liable to be dismissed on ground of limitation - Decisions of Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and State Bank of India are relied upon by counsel for petitioner with reference to objection regarding limitation - But once it is concluded that it is a case of mis-description Court do not think that present impalement of Union Territory will also expose original applicants to risk of being non-suited on ground of limitation - Therefore in fine orders of Tribunal holding original applications to be maintainable are perfectly in order and Court see no ground to interfere with same - Writ petitions are dismissed
1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petitions, challenging a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding the applications filed by the contesting respondents as maintainable.
2. We have heard Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
3. The Government of Puducherry invited applications for filling up 41 posts of Sub-Inspectors through a Notification dated 18.11.2010. The recruitment process comprised of three stages. In the first stage, all candidates were required to take a physical measurement test. Those, who qualified in the test, were to take a physical efficiency test and those, who qualified in the said test, were invited for a written examination.
4. Claiming that they had passed the physical measurement and physical efficiency tests and that since the written examination was conducted only in English, they could not take the exam and/or get selected, the contesting respondents herein filed applications challenging the provisional select list dated 7.2.2011. In those applications, as they were originally filed, the unselected candidates, impleaded only two respondents namely (i) the Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Puducherry; and (ii) the Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters), Police Department, Puducherry. The selected candidates were not impleaded as parties. The orders of appointment issued to the selected candidates, were also not challenged. The Tribunal admitted the original applications, but did not grant any interim orders.
5. As against the refusal of the Tribunal to grant interim orders, the unselected candidates filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3755 of 2011 on the file of this Court. In the said writ petition, an interim order was granted. Immediately, the selected candidates filed petitions for impleading themselves as parties and they also got impleaded. Thereafter, W.P.No.3755 of 2011 was disposed of on 25.2.2011 directing the Tribunal to decide the applications, after considering the contentions of the selected candidates with regard to laches, non-impleadment of necessary parties and other legal grounds.
6. Thereafter, the original applicants before the Tribunal took out miscellaneous applications in M.A.Nos.379 to 384 of 2012 (i) for amendment of the prayer made in the original applications so as to challenge the orders of appointment dated 1.3.2011 and (ii) for impleading the selected candidates. The miscellaneous applications were allowed by an order dated 12.10.2012, permitting amendment of the prayers and impleadment.
7. Therefore, the selected candidates filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 29234 to 29236, 31675 to 31677 and 33020 to 33022 of 2012, challenging the order of the Tribunal allowing the applications for amendment and impleadment. These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by a common order dated 1.7.2013, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitting the matters back for a fresh consideration. Paragraph 18 of the order of the Division Bench in the batch of writ petitions reads as follows :
"In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the common order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.10.2012 in the miscellaneous applications filed for amendment and impleading respondents is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall consider the question of limitation first, while considering the miscellaneous applications filed for amendment and impleading respondents and pass appropriate orders without being influenced by any of the findings expressed in this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by either parties."
8. Thereafter, the Tribunal took up those miscellaneous applications again for consideration and by a common order dated 13.8.2014, the Tribunal allowed the applications for amendment as
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
