21. The case of Shiv Kumar Tiwari (supra), was pressed to bring home the point that previous judgment could not be pressed to the detriment or prejudice of the interest of a party who was not heard. The brief facts of the said case was that the appellant was temporarily appointed as a Teacher in Mathematics in the college in reference, and the District Inspector of Schools accorded approval for session 1969-70, and fresh approvals were granted for subsequent academic session 1970-71, 1971 -72 and 1972-73. Before the expiry of the term on 30.06.1973, the College Management gave a notice dated 19.05.1973, which was questioned by filing cs Case No. 108/1973 without impleading State, or Education Department, or the first respondent, who was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics on 06.09.1973 in the said college after a selection process. The suit was decreed on 25.05.1979, declaring the appellant to be permanent Lecturer in Mathematics. Thereafter, on a representation filed by the petitioner, the authorities, without hearing the first respondent, not only terminated his service but it was also held that salary, etc. have to be paid to the appellant. The first respondent challenged the order dated 09.11.1979 by filing CMWP No. 9255/1979 and the appellant filed WP No. 17209/1992 for payment of salary. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the first respondent and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. In that factual context, it was held by the Supreme Court of India that non-joinder of necessary parties was fatal and the judgment passed in the suit filed by the appellant would not benefit him. Thus, on facts, the present case is distinguishable. Moreover, in this writ petition, there is no prayer by the petitioner that the judgment and order dated 10.02.2014 in W.P.(C) 4424/2013 was a nullity”.
