Back
(BEFORE RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.)
STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER- Petitioners;
Versus
PAWAN KUMAR RAJPUT AND OTHERS -Respondents.
SLP (C) No. 23355 of 2004
decided on January 7, 2005
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner Challenging Rules for recruitment of lecturers - High stayed the operation of the Rules-Contention that it was in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, not accepted as petitioner was litigating his own interest-Petitioner directed to approach the State Administrative Tribunal in view of categoric directive in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 1997(3) SCC 261-Interim order of the High Court extended to 8 weeks subject to any order passed by the Tribunal. [Paras 1 & 2]
ORDER
1. The subject-matter of the dispute in this special leave petition is an interim order passed by the High Court by which it has, inter alia, stayed the operation of the rules framed by the State Government regarding recruitment of lecturers. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner State, the High Court should not have entertained the petition because of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India) and in particular para 99 thereof. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the litigation was really in the nature of public interest although the petitioners were interested themselves in the outcome of the litigation. They have relied upon the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra in this context. It appears to us from the nature of the dispute that the litigation could not be said to be a public interest litigation as the writ petitioners were prosecuting the litigation in their own interest. It would, therefore, be proper a for the High Court to have directed the petitioners to approach the State Administrative Tribunal, in view of the categoric directive of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar case
2. In the circumstances, we dispose of the special leave petition by directing the interim order granted by the High Court to continue for a period of 8 weeks. Civil Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2004, Pawan Kumar Rajput v. b State of H.P. is transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal. The continuation of the interim order passed by us today will be subject to any order that will be passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, which will exercise its discretion uninhibited by any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. We make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge in the writ petition.
3. The respondents will be at liberty to pray for continuation of the interim order before the Tribunal.
4. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
