SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU, CJI., A.K. SIKRI, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANR. - Appellant
VERSUS
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS - Respondent
I.A.NOS. 127-129/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 1867/2006 WITH W.P.(C) No. 403/2014
Decided on : 20-01-2015
Status Quo - Recruitment of Judicial Officers - The court clarified that the status quo order granted in the writ petition does not come in the way of the High Court initiating and completing the process of recruitment of Judicial Officers in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The court also clarified that the State Government's order banning recruitments will not hinder the High Court's recruitment process.
Fact of the Case:
The court had granted a status quo order in a writ petition, and subsequent applications were filed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to clarify the order and continue the recruitment process for Civil Judges and District Judges.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified that the status quo order does not affect the High Court's recruitment process and allowed the High Court another six months to complete the recruitment process. The court also allowed the prayers for impleadment and requested the petitioner to amend the Memo of parties.
Issues: Clarification of status quo order, impact of State Government's order on recruitments, impleadment in the writ petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to clarify that the status quo order does not hinder the High Court's recruitment process and that the State Government's order banning recruitments will not affect the High Court's recruitment process.
Final Decision: The court clarified the impact of the status quo order and the State Government's order on the recruitment process, allowed the High Court another six months to complete the recruitment process, and granted the prayers for impleadment.
ORDER :
By our order dated 7.7.2014, while entertaining the Writ Petition(C) No.403 of 2014, we had granted “status quo” order as of that date.
Now, I.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2014 have been filed on behalf of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The prayer in these applications is to clarify the order passed by us on 7.7.2014 and further request the High Court to continue the process of recruitment of Civil Judges (both Senior and Junior Division) and also recruitment/promotions of District
Judges (both direct as well as promotions).
In our view, the subject matter of the writ petition has nothing to do with the proceedings initiated by the High Court for recruitment of Judicial Officers. Since there is some apprehension in the mind of the applicants and the respondents, we clarify that the “status quo” order passed by us in the Writ
Petition will into come in the way of High Court intiating and also completing the process where proceedings are already initiated for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the States of
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Now, it is brought to our notice by Mr.P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 16.05.2014 banning the recruitments/appointments/transfers/ promotions etc.
In view of this subsequent development, we clarify that the order issued by the State Government will also not come in the way of the High Court in proceeding with the recruitment process which they have already initiated or which they would initiate in future.
Accordingly, we dispose of I.A.Nos.127, 128 and 129 of 2014.
The High Court is granted another six months' from today to complete the recruitment process.
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.(C)NO.403 of 2014:
The prayers made in the interlocutory applications for impleadment are allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is requested to amend the Memo of parties within four weeks' time from today.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.