1. Nationalisation led to loss of job; Labour Court dismissed claim; High Court directed absorption as cleaner. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 436
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal : S.P.Bharucha
Divisional Manager, A.P.Srtc
Versus
Kondi K.Rambabu
Case No. : 1558 , 1559 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/25/00
Important Points
High Courts cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to direct a statutory body to perform an act impermissible under law or governing rules, even to meet the ends of justice, if the petitioner's case lacks legal merit.
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Limits of power to grant relief - Where relief is to be granted on merits, it can be moulded to meet the ends of justice; however, when there is no merit in the writ petitioner's case in law, the court cannot, to meet the ends of justice, direct the respondent to do that which is impermissible for it to do in law and under the rules that govern that respondent. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An individual who worked as a cleaner-cum-driver with a private operator lost employment following nationalization. After an application before the labour court was dismissed, a writ petition was filed. The court hearing the petition noted that the relevant circular did not apply to cleaners, yet directed the statutory corporation to absorb the petitioner as a cleaner to meet the ends of justice. A review petition against this direction was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is no jurisdiction in the High Court to pass such orders when the action directed is impermissible under the law and rules governing the respondent, particularly in the absence of legal merit in the petitioner's case.
Issues: Whether a court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can direct a respondent to perform an act that is impermissible under law and governing rules solely to meet the ends of justice when the petitioner's case lacks legal merit.
Ratio Decidendi: A court may mould relief to achieve justice where merit exists, but it cannot compel a respondent to act contrary to the law or its governing rules if the petitioner's case is legally meritless.
Result: Appeals allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
An individual who worked as a cleaner-cum-driver with a private operator lost employment following nationalization. After an application before the labour court was dismissed, a writ petition was filed. The court hearing the petition noted that the relevant circular did not apply to cleaners, yet directed the statutory corporation to absorb the petitioner as a cleaner to meet the ends of justice. A review petition against this direction was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is no jurisdiction in the High Court to pass such orders when the action directed is impermissible under the law and rules governing the respondent, particularly in the absence of legal merit in the petitioner's case.
Issues: Whether a court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can direct a respondent to perform an act that is impermissible under law and governing rules solely to meet the ends of justice when the petitioner's case lacks legal merit.
Ratio Decidendi: A court may mould relief to achieve justice where merit exists, but it cannot compel a respondent to act contrary to the law or its governing rules if the petitioner's case is legally meritless.
Result: Appeals allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent sought direction for appointment as cleaner based on prior orders; appellant Corporation opposed. (Para 3 )
3. High Court cannot grant relief to meet ends of justice when no merit in law exists. (Para 4 )
4. Court cannot direct a party to do what is impermissible in law and under governing rules. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals allowed; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs. (Para 5 )
6. Can a court mould relief to meet ends of justice when a claim has no legal merit?
No. The court cannot direct a party to do what is impermissible in law and under applicable rules merely to meet ends of justice. (Para 4 )
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) LEAVE granted.
(3) THE first respondent was working as a cleaner-cum-driver with a private operator. As a result of nationalisation, the respondent lost his job. He filed an application before the Labour Court, which was dismissed. Thereagainst, he filed a writ petition upon which the order under challenge was passed. The Division Bench that heard the writ petition noted that the circular upon which the respondent had relied before the Labour Court did not apply to cleaners. The respondents counsel directed the attention of the Division Bench to orders whereby it had directed the appellant Corporation to appoint displaced persons as cleaners though they had worked as drivers and had been found ineligible by the appellant Corporation for the post of cleaner. Learned counsel prayed for a similar direction, and the High Court said: "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, we feel it appropriate to direct the Corporation to absorb the petitioner as cleaner provided he is willing." A review petition by the appellant Corporation was dismissed.
(4) THERE is no jurisdiction in the High Court to pass orders such as this. Where relief is to be granted on merits, it can be moulded to meet the ends of justice. But when, as in this case, there is no merit in the writ petitioners case in law, the court cannot, to meet what it says are the ends of justice, direct the respondent to a writ petition to do that which is impermissible for it to do in law and under the rules that govern that respondent. The orders of the High Court are, therefore, quashed.
(5) THE appeals are allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
