THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION 29215 of 2010 Between: Dr. C. Atchanna ..... PETITIONER(S) AND .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION 29215 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been directed against the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner challenging his transfer order. During the course of hearing, it is brought to our notice that this writ petition, so also O.A. before the Tribunal, have been filed without impleading the State as a party respondent. In RANJET MAL V. NORTHERN RAILWAY ( 1977 (1) SC 484 ) the Supreme Court considered a case where the writ petition had been filed challenging the order of termination from service against the General Manager of the Northern Railway without impleading the Union of India, and considering those circumstances the Supreme Court held as under : “ 7. The Union of India represents the railway administration. The Union carries on administration through different servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the mater of appointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 26 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view, the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be a necessary party. The petition was rightly rejected by the High Court.” In a recent judgment reported in COLLECTOR v. BAGATHI KRISHNA RAO ( 2010 (6) SCC 427 ) the Supreme Court considering the entire case law on this aspect has inter alia held that Article 300 of the Constitution deals with legal proceedings by or against the Union of India or the State and provides that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be; in the case of Central Government, the Union of India, and in the case of State Government, the State, which is suing or is being sued. Since the State was not made a party in the proceedings, and in order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to move an application for impeladment of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the circumstances, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in BAGATHI KRISHNA RAO’s case ( supra ), and without going into merits or otherwise of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for taking appropriate steps as to impleading the proper parties in the O.A., by the petitioner and thereafter for its adjudication on merits as perlaw. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________ K.G.SHANKER, J. 24TH January 2011 KK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION 29215 of 2010 24-1-2011