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
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.