HEMALIBEN PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Shri P.H.Pathak for the petitioner, Shri Malkhan, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for the respondent no.1-Union of India and Shri P.S.Patel for private respondent no.2.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the observation made by the Tribunal in paragraph 22 of its impugned judgment and order dated 27-2-2004 passed in O.A.Nos.61/2002 & 396/2003 that the appointment of private respondent-present petitioner needs to be quashed. Before approaching this Court by way of the said petition, the petitioner had approached the learned Tribunal by way of Review Application no.29 of 2004 which was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 29-3-2004. Both these impugned orders at Annexures 'C' & 'E' passed by the learned Tribunal are challenged in this petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that there was no such prayer made by the present private respondent no.2-original applicant in his application filed before the learned Tribunal to declare the appointment of present petitioner as illegal, and therefore, it may be quashed. Therefore, no such argument was advanced on behalf of the present petitioner before the learned Tribunal. What was challenged by the original applicant-private respondent no.2 was his termination which was declared to be illegal, and therefore, quashed and set aside. However, while quashing and setting aside the termination, the Tribunal in its impugned order observed that the appointment of the private respondent-present petitioner needs to be quashed. When Review Application was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Tribunal along with the affidavit of Shri Pathak who had appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the petitioner in said review application, the said review application was also rejected on the grounds mentioned in it.