Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A. No. 40498 of 1990 and review application M.A. No. 2191 of 1994. The dispute concerned selection to ten posts of Deputy Collector in Group I services for recruitment year 1980-81, advertised by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission through notification dated 28 January 1980. The appellant belonged to the open competition category, applied, and appeared in the written test and interview held on 19 January 1981. Out of ten posts, two were reserved for Scheduled Castes, one for Backward Class Group 'A', two for Backward Class Group 'D', and five for open competition. Respondents 4 to 9 belonged to Backward Classes. The appellant challenged their appointments alleging violation of reservation rules, claiming that more persons than the reserved percentage were appointed. He first filed R.P. No. 6652 before the Tribunal, which did not interfere with the 1981 appointments due to laches but observed that his representation may be considered for any future vacancy. His subsequent representation to the Commission was rejected on the ground that the Commission had no power to consider any application on compassionate grounds. He then filed O.A. No. 40498 of 1990, which the Tribunal dismissed on laches, noting that a selection made in 1980 could not be annulled in 1994 when the application was filed as late as 1990. His review application M.A. No. 2191 of 1994 was dismissed by order dated 24 August 1994, finding no error apparent on the face of the record. He then approached the Supreme Court. The appellant, appearing in person, argued that appointments made contrary to the Rules of Reservations were invalid and inoperative, his right to appointment was illegally taken away, and the appointments of respondents should be annulled and his appointment reconsidered. The Supreme Court noted that the earlier order in R.P. No. 6652 had become final as it was not challenged in any higher court. The Court held that on admitted facts, appointment to Deputy Collector was made in 1981 and an application before the Tribunal in 1990 could not be entertained after lapse of nine years. Further, the affected persons were not made parties to the proceedings, and it is well settled that without impleading a person whose rights would be affected, no court or tribunal can pass an order against him. The Court found no justification to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The appellant challenged appointments to Deputy Collector made in 1981 by filing a fresh application in 1990 after a delay of nine years; the earlier Tribunal order in R.P. No. 6652 dismissing the challenge on laches had become final. The Supreme Court refused to annul a selection made in 1980 when the application was filed in 1990, holding that the challenge was barred by laches and no interference under Article 136 was warranted (Paras 3,5,6). B) Procedural Law - Necessary Parties - Non-Joinder of Affected Persons - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The appellant failed to implead respondents 4 to 9 whose appointments were sought to be annulled; the Court reiterated that without impleading a person as a party whose rights would be affected, no court or tribunal can pass any order against him. Held that this was an additional hurdle precluding relief (Para 5). C) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Article 136 of the Constitution of India - The Supreme Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, finding no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's orders dismissing the application and review on grounds of laches and non-joinder; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's challenge to appointments made in 1981 could be entertained in 1990 after a delay of 9 years, particularly given the earlier Tribunal order dismissing the challenge on laches which had become final; and whether the failure to implead affected persons as parties barred the relief sought.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the belated challenge to appointments made in 1981 could not be entertained in 1990 after a lapse of 9 years, and that the affected persons were not impleaded as necessary parties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches bar belated challenge to appointments
- necessary parties must be impleaded
- Article 136 discretionary
- earlier Tribunal order on laches final if not appealed
- no review for error apparent on face of record
- selection made in 1980 cannot be annulled in 1994 when application filed in 1990
- reservation rules violation challenge requires prompt action
