In Brief
M. Sitalakshmi, an LDC who was promoted to Junior Stenographer after successfully appearing in a competitive departmental examination against a regular vacancy, sought regularization w.e.f. the date of her ad hoc appointment. The tribunal allowed her claim. Respondent No. 4, who did not appear in that examination, challenged the tribunal's order in the High Court, contending she was a necessary party who should have been impleaded. The Supreme Court held that respondent No. 4 was not a necessary party since the appellant's relief arose from a test she chose not to attend, making their causes of action completely independent. The Court restored the tribunal's decision and allowed the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.