Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 2363
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Subhash Chander Bajaj - Petitioner
Versus
Kamal Singh Singhmar & Ors. - Respondents
C.A. No. 15048 of 1996 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17156 of 1996)
Decided On : 29-11-1996
The court emphasized that the High Court had no occasion to examine the validity of the appellant's appointment and quash the same, leading to the setting aside of the quashing of the appointment.
Headnote:
Appointment - District Attorney - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the High Court's order quashing the appointment of the appellant as District Attorney.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a writ petition claiming the post of District Attorney. The High Court found that the respondent had not applied for the post through proper channel and had sent an advance copy to the Commission directly without prescribed fee, and therefore was not entitled to be considered for the post. The High Court quashed the appointment of the appellant, who had been recommended by the Commission and appointed as District Attorney in July 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the validity of the appellant's appointment and then to quash the same. The appeal was allowed, and the part of the High Court's order quashing the appointment of the appellant was set aside.
Issues: Validity of the respondent's claim for the post of District Attorney, examination of the validity of the appellant's appointment, and the authority of the High Court to quash the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's examination of the validity of the appellant's appointment was found to be unnecessary, and the quashing of the appointment was set aside.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the part of the High Court's order quashing the appointment of the appellant was set aside. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. One Kamal Singh Singhmar, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Respondent) filed a writ petition claiming the post of District Attorney. The High Court on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the said respondent had not applied for the post through proper channel on January 21, 1992 and had sent an advance copy to the Commission directly without prescribed fee as such he was not entitled to be considered for the said post. After having said so, the High Court quashed the appointment of the appellant whose name had been recommended by the Commission and who had been appointed as District Attorney as early as in July, 1993.
3. It has rightly been urged on behalf of the appellant that while dismissing the writ petition of the respondent there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the validity of the appointment of the appellant and then to quash the same. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and that part of the order of the High Court quashing the appointment of the appellant is set aside. No costs.
Order accordingly.
