The principles governing the determination of whether a particular office or employment is a "civil post" within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution are settled at the highest, and therefore, a case cannot be certified by the High Court as fit one for appeal when the point raised is already settled by the Supreme Court.

ORDER:- This is an application by L. Tombi Singh under Cl.(c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 11th December 1970 of this Court by which the applicants petition under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the order terminating his services as Chowkidar of village Khangabok was rejected. The prayer for certificate of fitness is opposed by the respondents who are the Superintendent of Police, Manipur, and the Union of India.

2. Shri Somorendra Singh urged for the applicant that the central question that fell for determination in the writ petition being one of general and public importance it is a fit case in which the certificate should be granted. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand contended that certificate can be granted in terms of Cl.(c) of Article 133(1) only if the question of law raised is substantial in the sense that it is of general public importance, that since the only point canvassed during the course of arguments in this Court, when the writ petition came up for hearing, was whether L. Tombi Singh held a civil post in his capacity as Chowkidar, that since the principles governing what constitutes a civil post were settled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884, and all that this Court had to do in determining whether a Chowkidar in territory of Manipur holds a civil post, was to apply those principles, certificate of fitness cannot be legally granted. To support that contention he cited AIR 1962 SC 1314, Chunilal v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. The rule enunciated in this authority is as under:

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of Law."

3. According to Cl.(c) of Article 133(1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. It was conceded at the bar by the learned Government Advocate that all conditions prescribed by Cl.(c) excepting that it "is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court" are satisfied. Therefore, what falls for determination is whether the present one is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Clause (c) of Art.133(1) has been the subject of interpretation in a large number of authorities of various High Courts in India as also of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held in the case of Nar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 457, that in the case of Cl.(c) both of Art.133(1) and Art.134(1) "the only condition is the discretion of the High Court but the discretion is a judicial one and must be judicially exercised along the well-established lines which govern these matters." In the case of Chunilal, AIR 1962 SC 1314 (supra) the Supreme Court very clearly laid down the rule that if the question in dispute is settled by the Highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles, the question would not be a substantial question of law. The criteria for determining whether a particular office or employment is a "civ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document