M. SELVANA THAN AND ANR. ETC. v. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC.

Tools
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
(year only)
Bench
R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN and G.P. MATHUR
Citation
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 1

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided (year only) · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN and G.P. MATHUR

[2005] 2 S.C.R. 1

Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)

Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details

FEBRUARY 11, 2005 B

Service law :

Resen,ation--Claimed by migrant Scheduled Caste candidates-Held, C for reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998* etc. these appeals are allowed.

*S. Pushpa and Ors. v. Sivachanmughave/ue and Ors., , referred to. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1381-82 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2002 of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 8279 and 8280 of 1998. E AND

C.A. No. 1383 of 2004.

V. Prabhakar, C.U. Sunanithni, R.S. Krishan Kumar and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 1381-82/2004. F S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Ms. Srikala, G.K. and S.R. Setia for the Appellant

,, in C.A. No. 1383/2004

M.N. Rao, V.R. Reddy, R. Venkataramani, T.S. Doabia, M.A. Chinnaswamy, V.G. Pragasam, V. Balachandran, Naveen, R. Nath, Ms. Lalit G Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ashok Panigrahi, V.K. Verma, S.N. Terdal and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Respondents.

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A G.P. MATHUR, J. The issue involved in these appeals is similar to that of Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of l 998. In these cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal had allowed the O.A. flied by some of the respondents following· its earlier judgment and order dated 5.11.1996 given in O.A. No. 199/1996 and 0.A. No. 214/1996 and the writ B petition filed by the appellants challenging the said ord.er was dismissed by the Madras High Court.

For the reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 etc. these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside. c R.P. Appeals allowed.

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0