1. Refusal of compassionate appointment — Writ petition de-listed by Single Judge — Intra-court appeal filed — Division Bench decided the writ petition without formal referral. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 567
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited – Appellant
Versus
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 28399 of 2024]
Decided on : 25-02-2025
Important Points
Judicial orders made without proper jurisdiction are void, emphasizing the Chief Justice's authority in roster determination.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial discipline and propriety - The appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Division Bench to hear a writ petition without authorization from the Chief Justice, leading to the conclusion that such adjudication is void. (Paras 6, 9)
(B) Compassionate appointment - The refusal of compassionate appointment by the appellant was challenged, and the Single Judge's de-listing of the writ petition was deemed improper. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a High Court order allowing a writ petition for compassionate appointment, which was initially de-listed by a Single Judge awaiting a larger bench's decision.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside due to lack of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was revived for consideration by an appropriate bench.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Division Bench had jurisdiction to hear the writ petition without proper authorization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any order made without proper jurisdiction is void, emphasizing the Chief Justice's authority in roster determination.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Compassionate appointment - The refusal of compassionate appointment by the appellant was challenged, and the Single Judge's de-listing of the writ petition was deemed improper. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a High Court order allowing a writ petition for compassionate appointment, which was initially de-listed by a Single Judge awaiting a larger bench's decision.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside due to lack of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was revived for consideration by an appropriate bench.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Division Bench had jurisdiction to hear the writ petition without proper authorization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any order made without proper jurisdiction is void, emphasizing the Chief Justice's authority in roster determination.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Adv. Mr. Yati Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Akash Dixit, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Adv. Mr. Yati Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Akash Dixit, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the court should decide the matter on merits given the appellant's consent to the Division Bench hearing the writ petition. (Para 5 )
3. Consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction; a Division Bench cannot hear a writ petition without authorization from the Chief Justice or a referral under Rule 26. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Adjudications made by a bench without allocation by the Chief Justice of the High Court are without jurisdiction and constitute a nullity. (Para 9 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Writ petition revived and remanded to the High Court for disposal by a bench assigned by the Chief Justice. (Para 10 , 12 )
6. Does the consent of parties confer jurisdiction on a court to hear a matter?
No, consent does not confer jurisdiction. A judicial order based on party consent that overrides the Chief Justice's roster or Writ Rules cannot vest jurisdiction in a court to hear a pending matter. (Para 7 )
7. What is the legal effect of a judicial order passed by a bench without proper allocation by the Chief Justice?
Any order made by a bench that was not assigned the case by the Chief Justice of the High Court, or in accordance with their directions, is without jurisdiction and is considered a nullity. (Para 9 )
8. Who has the authority to set the roster in a High Court and is it binding?
The Chief Justice of the High Court, as primus inter pares, is vested with the power and authority to set the roster, which is final and binding on all companion justices. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 04, 2024 (impugned order) passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench [Division Bench] of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta [High Court]. In course of deciding an intra-court appeal (MAT 850 of 2022) filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the respondents in this appeal [writ petitioners], their writ petition [WPA No.13605 of 2016] was allowed, the order impugned in the writ petition set aside and directions were issued to the appellant-Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited [GRSE Ltd.] to appoint 48 [forty-eight] of the 51 [fifty-one] writ petitioners on compassionate ground.
3. Having regard to the order we propose to pass, it is not considered necessary to delve deep into the facts giving rise to the writ petition.
4. Suffice it to note, the subject matter of the writ petition concerned refusal to offer compassionate appointment by GRSE Ltd. to the writ petitioners. A learned Single Judge (Single Judge) of the High Court by an order dated February 21, 2022 (under challenge in the intra-court appeal) had de-listed the writ petition awaiting a decision of this Court on the reference made to a larger bench in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 with liberty to mention after the reference is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-81 of 2014, since reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 . We are inclined to observe that the said decision, at the relevant time, had settled the issue as regards the policy that would apply in considering applications for compassionate appointment, yet, the Single Judge refrained from proceeding with hearing of the writ petition on the specious ground of the pending reference. Although the Single Judge may not have been entirely right in de- listing the writ petition on the stated ground and ought to have proceeded with consideration of the writ petition finally, giving due regard to the law then prevailing, rights of the parties were not determined and no judgment was rendered if seen within the prism of clause 15 of the Letters Patent; thus, it is debatable as to whether an intra-court appeal could have at all been maintained before the appellate court against the order of de-listing in view of the decision of this Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania (1981) 4 SCC 8. At any rate, even if an intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of de- listing, the writ petition not having been heard finally and on it being de-listed by the Single Judge with liberty to mention after the reference is answered by this Court, at the highest, intervention to the limited extent of requesting the Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law was open and permissible. However, it has intrigued us to no end as to how the writ petition could be heard by the Division Bench.
5. At this stage, our attention has been invited by Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners to an order dated March 11, 2024 passed by another Division Bench (predecessor Division Bench) which was then seized of the intra-court appeal. It was pointed out that before such bench, learned senior counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. had agreed to the suggestion of counsel for the writ petitioners to disposal of the writ petition by the appellate court and it is pursuant thereto that the records of the writ petition were placed before the Division Bench which ultimately, upon a contested hearing, proceeded to pass the impugned order finally disposing of the intra-court appeal as well as the writ petition in favour of the writ petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that GRSE Ltd. having also agreed to consideration and disposal of the writ petition by the appellate court, this Court may not take too technical a view of the matter and decide the appeal
