Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Salam Samarjeet Singh – Petitioners
Versus
The High Court of Manipur and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No 294 of 2015
Decided On : 12-07-2023
Difference of Opinion - Constitution Bench Reference - The court considered the difference of opinion between the judges and the need for reference to a Constitution Bench, ultimately deciding to add the case to a list of three-Judge Bench matters for resolution.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a difference of opinion in a two-Judge Bench, leading to a reference to a three-Judge Bench. The parties submitted questions related to executive instructions, cut off marks criteria, and procedural fairness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference to a Constitution Bench was unnecessary as the issue raised did not align with the reference in another case. It directed the case to be added to the list of three-Judge Bench matters for resolution.
Issues: The main issues raised included the overriding of statutory rules by executive instructions, the introduction of cut off marks criteria without informing successful candidates, and the implications of such actions on procedural fairness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unnecessary nature of the Constitution Bench reference and the need to resolve the difference of opinion by a three-Judge Bench.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to add the case to the list of three-Judge Bench matters and seek direction for listing the petition before an appropriate Bench at an early date.
ORDER
1. On 7 October 2016, there was a difference of opinion in the two Judge Bench which was hearing Writ Petition (Civil) No 294 of 2015 differed. The petition was placed before a three-Judge Bench on 10 August 2017, when the following order was passed:
In view of the above, let this matter be tagged with the same.”
2 The direction to place the case for hearing together with the reference to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 was in view of the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties that a similar question of law has been referred.
3 During the course of the hearing, Mr Rana Mukherjee, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the following three questions would arise in the case:
2. Can the criteria of cut off marks be introduced by a FullCourt Resolution without amending the rules after the written test is over without informing the successful candidate?
3. Whether such a course of action amounts to procedural fairness/unfairness?
4 Mr Vijay Hansaria, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Manipur, submits that he would wish to raise certain other questions.
5 During the course of the hearing, it emerges from the submissions of counsel that a reference to the Constitution Bench along the lines in Tej Prakash Pathak is unnecessary since the issue which is referred to the Constitution Bench is not raised here. The difference of opinion between the two Judges would have to be resolved by a three-Judge Bench.
6 We accordingly direct the Registry to add the present case to the list of three-Judge Bench matters and seek direction on the administrative side for listing the petition before an appropriate Bench at an early date.
The court emphasized the importance of aligning the issues raised in a case with the reference to a Constitution Bench and the need to resolve differences of opinion through appropriate bench formati....
Issue raised in reference to Constitution Bench must directly arise in the present case
(1) Appointment on post of District Judge (Entry Level) – Executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where method of final selection by combining cumulative grade value obtained in writte....
The territorial jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions under Article 227 is determined by the location of the original authority, not the appellate authority, as mandated by administrative rules.
The Full Bench clarified that the jurisdiction of the Single Judge under Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, extends to all quasi-judicial orders, regardless of whether the s....
The court emphasized the need for restraint in challenging key answers and the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in recruitment disputes.
Judicial appointments under Article 233(2) necessitate clearer interpretation by a Constitution Bench, ensuring eligibility criteria for district judges adequately reflect independence and prior advo....
A judge must operate within their assigned jurisdiction; any order made outside this scope is void.
A single judge cannot declare a Division Bench judgment null; judicial discipline mandates adherence to higher court rulings, ensuring consistency in legal interpretations.
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
