Back
2003 Supreme(Chh) 246
2004 (1) C.G.L.J. 1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Shri Fakhruddin & L. C. Bhadoo, JJ.
DILIP DESHMUKH - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS - Respondents
AND
DHARMENDRA SWAROOP JAIN - Petitioner
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 414 of 2002 with 1269 of 2001,
Decided on : 6-12-2003.
Writ Petition No. 414 of 2002 :
Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P. Diwaker, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Deputy A.G., for the State/Respondent No.1 Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 & 4.
Mr. Prashant Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the Respondents
No. 5-a & 5-b.
Mr. K.A. Ansari, Advocate, for the Respondent No.6.
Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate, for the Respondent No.7.
Mr. R.S. Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Respondents 8 to 12.
Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2001 :
Mr. H.N. Vyas, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prashant Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G., for the State/Respondent No.3.
Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Respondents 4 & 5:
Mr. K.A. Ansari, Advpcate, for the Respondent No.6.
Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate, for the Respondent No.7.
Headnote:
The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, in the case of Dilip Deshmukh v. Union of India, examined the validity of the provisional and final allocation of judicial officers to the successor States of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, guidelines issued by the Central Government, and the principles governing the allocation process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, District and Sessions Judges in the Super Time Scale, challenged the provisional allocation of respondent No.6 (Mr. B.K. Shrivastava) to the State of Chhattisgarh and the final allocation of respondents No.6 and 7 (Mr. B.K. Shrivastava and Mr. Y.K. Shrivastava) to the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners argued that the allocation violated Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which vests the power of control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court, and that the allocation was made without consulting the Hon'ble Chief Justices of both High Courts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the allocation of judicial officers was not subject to Article 235 of the Constitution of India, as the Act had been enacted under Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution, which provide for the creation of new States and the allocation of personnel to the successor States. The Court further held that the guidelines issued by the Central Government and the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 71 of the Act were statutory guidelines and had to be followed in the allocation process.
Issues: 1. Whether the allocation of judicial officers to the successor States under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, was subject to Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which vests the power of control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court? 2. Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Government and the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 71 of the Act were statutory guidelines and had to be followed in the allocation process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the allocation of judicial officers to the successor States under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, was not subject to Article 235 of the Constitution of India, as the Act had been enacted under Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution, which provide for the creation of new States and the allocation of personnel to the successor States. The Court reasoned that the Act was an extra-ordinary event and that the allocation of judicial officers was a function entrusted to the Central Government by the Act. 2. The Court held that the guidelines issued by the Central Government and the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 71 of the Act were statutory guidelines and had to be followed in the allocation process. The Court reasoned that the guidelines were issued under the authority of the Act and were intended to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of judicial officers to the successor States.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the allocation of respondents No.6 and 7 to the State of Chhattisgarh was not illegal or arbitrary and that the petitioners had not been able to show that their rights had been infringed or that they had suffered any legal injury.
Shri L. C. Bhadoo, J.:-
1. By this writ petition (W.P. No. 414 of 2002) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Mr. Dilip Deshmukh, District & Sessions Judge (Super Time Pay Scale), has challenged the order dated 07-06-2001 passed by the Union of India ordering provisional allocation of respondent No.6 Mr. B.K. Shrivastava, District & Sessions Judge, Rewa (M.P.) retrospectively w.e.f. 01-11-2000 to the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 68( 1) of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, and also the order dated 07-12-2001 passed by the Union of India by which under the Above Super Time Scale category, respondents 6 & 7 namely, Mr. B.K. Shrivastava & Mr. V.K. Shrivastava, respectively, have been allocated finally to the State of Chattisgarh w.e.f 01-11-2000.
2. Similarly, by writ petition No. 1269 of 2001 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Mr. Dharmendra Swaroop Jain, District & Sessions Judge, Raipur, has challenged the provisional allocation of Mr. B.K. Shrivastava, District & Sessions Judge, Rewa (M.P.), vide order dated 07-06-2001 passed by the Union of India under Section 68(1) of the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 and also the final allocation of above two officers i.e. Mr. B.K. Shrivastava and Mr. Y.K. Shrivastava
3. Since, in both these writ petitions, same question of law is involved and also same allocation orders, are challenged, they are being disposed of by this common order.
4. At the time of the provisional allocation both the petitioners were working in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge in Super Time Scale, whereas, both the respondents (respondents 6 & 7) were working in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge in Above Super Time Pay Scale. Facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that the Government of India decided to bifurcate the State of Madhya Pradesh into two States i.e. Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh accordingly a Bill was laid before the Parliament under the enabling power of Articles 2, 3 & 4 of the constitution of India, Relevant parts of Articles 2, 3 & 4 of the Constitution of India, which are relevant in these cases are reproduced below:
2. Admission or establishment of new States - Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States - Parliament may by law (a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
[Explanation I. - In this articles, in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union territory.
Explanation II. - The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory. ]
4. Laws made under Articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters - (1) Any law referred to in Article 2 or Article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.
(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
5. The Parliament resolved to bifurcate the State of Madhya Pradesh as mentioned above and in pursuance of that, Act No. 28 of 2000 i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, was enacted by the Parliament for providing the
