Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. This writ petition is filed by the Government and the State Port Officer, challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent herein was a regular employee of the Tamil Nadu Government. He was registered with the Employment Exchange and was appointed through the same. After his appointment on February 11, 1982, he worked with the Government for two years. Thereafter, as many as 13 persons were deputed on Foreign Service basis to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation, which had undertaken the task of ferrying the passengers between Kanyakumari and the Vivekananda Memorial. It seems that ultimately because of some disputes the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation had to terminate the said transportation task. They therefore wanted to send back the whole staff and sought the direction of the Government. It seems by the letter dated November 17, 1984, bearing No. 57929/F2/84-1, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government advised the State Port Officer that the said 13 persons who were deputed to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation should be taken back and should be absorbed in the Government service and for that purpose the Port Officer was directed to absorb the first respondent herein in its service. In spite of doing that the Port Officer seems to have straightaway requested the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to terminate the services of Vamadevan, probably because he was the junior most. Now, acting on that the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation seems to have terminated the services of Vamadevan, the first respondent herein. Therefore, the said Vamadevan filed a writ petition, which was duly transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal took a view that the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation has no authority, as a matter of fact, to terminate the services of the petitioner because the petitioner was not its employee and was in fact the employee of Tamil Nadu Government. He was merely on deputation and as such a deputationist could not be terminated by Poompuhar Shipping Corporation. The Tribunal also took note of the afore mentioned letter, dated November 17, 1984, and came to the conclusion that the Port Officer, contrary to the letter sent to him by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, could not have requested the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to terminate the services of the first respondent A. Vamadevan. The Tribunal also took note of the afore mentioned letter, dated November 17, 1984, and came to the conclusion that the Port Officer, contrary to the letter sent to him by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, could not have requested the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to terminate the services of the first respondent A. Vamadevan. Taking that view, the application was allowed and the order dated November 22, 1984, issued by the State Port Officer was set aside.In the first place, we must point out that the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. from whom the termination letter, dated December 7, 1984, proceeded, which was the apple of discord is itself not made a party to this petition for the reasons best known. In fact, Poompuhar Shipping Corporation was very much a party before the Tribunal. We do not know as to why the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation has not been joined as a party to the present petition. The petition must fail on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Even otherwise, Poompuhar Shipping Corporation being the organisation from whom the last termination order proceeded, was bound to be joined as a party and was rightly joined as a party in the initial writ petition filed by A. Vamadevan. Under such circumstances, not joining the said Corporation as a party to the present petition is, in our opinion, fatal. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has taken an absolutely correct view for the simple reason that the Government itself was of the opinion that the said Vamadevan was bound to be absorbed, which is clear from the letter, dated November 17, 1984. We now wonder as to how the Government can take a diametrically opposite stand to such letter in this writ petition. Very interestingly, the writ petition is being argued by the Government Advocate both on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu as well as the Port Trust Officer, when we actually see that the interests of the two are contrary to each other. Be that as it may, even on merits the Government has no case, for the simple reason that the employee was a regularly appointed employee and his services could not have been directed to be terminated by the Port Officer and such a direction could not have been issued by the Port Officer to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation. Be that as it may, even on merits the Government has no case, for the simple reason that the employee was a regularly appointed employee and his services could not have been directed to be terminated by the Port Officer and such a direction could not have been issued by the Port Officer to the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation. For all these reasons we are of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merits and is bound to be dismissed.Learned Government Pleader earnestly argued that in spite of this order the first respondent herein has not joined. The respondent claims to the contrary. He may join now and the Government Pleader also showed his readiness to get the respondent into service by allowing him to join. However, the question of payment between the date of the order of the Tribunal and the first respondent's joining date would be decided separately. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.