The Supreme Court yesterday held that it is not necessary to implead a tribunal, whose order is being challenged, as a party to the proceedings unless required by the law..The decision was rendered by a 3-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud..The case was an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)..The appellant, who was a teacher in a minority institution, was dismissed from service. He challenged this before the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal, which dismissed his case. The appellant then approached the Gujarat High Court by way of a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227. The same was dismissed by a Single judge of the High Court on merits whereupon the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal..The Division Bench dismissed the LPA after placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by a five-Judge Bench of the High Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M Mogal and Anr., in which it was held that a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable where the court or tribunal, whose order is sought to be quashed, is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings..This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court..The issue before the court was whether a tribunal or court whose order is challenged in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a necessary party to the proceedings..Adverting to its own judgment in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and Ors. and the provisions of Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, the Court held that only when a tribunal is entitled, under law to defend its orders, they become necessary parties to the proceedings. When tribunals are not required to defend their orders, they need not be arraigned as parties..In the instant case it held that,.“The tribunal is not required to defend its orders when they are challenged before the High Court in a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227. The lis is between the management and a member of its teaching or non-teaching staff, as the case may be. It is for the person aggrieved to pursue his or her remedies before the tribunal. An order of the tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. When the remedy is invoked, the tribunal is not required to step into arena of conflict for defending its order. Hence, the tribunal is not a necessary party to the proceedings in a Special Civil Application..Even if the High Court was to require the production of the record before the tribunal, there was no necessity of impleading the tribunal as a party to the proceedings. The tribunal not being required in law to defend its own order, the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were maintainable without the tribunal being impleaded.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court for deciding the case on merits..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court yesterday held that it is not necessary to implead a tribunal, whose order is being challenged, as a party to the proceedings unless required by the law..The decision was rendered by a 3-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud..The case was an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)..The appellant, who was a teacher in a minority institution, was dismissed from service. He challenged this before the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal, which dismissed his case. The appellant then approached the Gujarat High Court by way of a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227. The same was dismissed by a Single judge of the High Court on merits whereupon the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal..The Division Bench dismissed the LPA after placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by a five-Judge Bench of the High Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M Mogal and Anr., in which it was held that a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable where the court or tribunal, whose order is sought to be quashed, is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings..This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court..The issue before the court was whether a tribunal or court whose order is challenged in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a necessary party to the proceedings..Adverting to its own judgment in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and Ors. and the provisions of Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, the Court held that only when a tribunal is entitled, under law to defend its orders, they become necessary parties to the proceedings. When tribunals are not required to defend their orders, they need not be arraigned as parties..In the instant case it held that,.“The tribunal is not required to defend its orders when they are challenged before the High Court in a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227. The lis is between the management and a member of its teaching or non-teaching staff, as the case may be. It is for the person aggrieved to pursue his or her remedies before the tribunal. An order of the tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. When the remedy is invoked, the tribunal is not required to step into arena of conflict for defending its order. Hence, the tribunal is not a necessary party to the proceedings in a Special Civil Application..Even if the High Court was to require the production of the record before the tribunal, there was no necessity of impleading the tribunal as a party to the proceedings. The tribunal not being required in law to defend its own order, the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were maintainable without the tribunal being impleaded.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court for deciding the case on merits..Read the judgment below.