Judicial orders made without proper jurisdiction are void, emphasizing the Chief Justice's authority in roster determination.

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