Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 447
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, JJ.
The Director of NERIST and Ors. - Appellant
VERSUS
Dr Benudhar Nayak and Ors. -Respondent
WA/25/2024
Decided On : 09-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Nani Anju, S/C NERIST, Ajin Apang, Sr. Advocate,Keprunda Mena
For the Respondent: Dicky Panging, DSGI,Marto Kato
Consent orders must be implemented unless justifiable grounds for non-compliance are established, which were not shown in this case.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition (Civil) 304(AP)/2020 - Intra-Court appeal against order dated 29.07.2024 - Direction to implement decision from order dated 12.01.2016 regarding Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for faculty members - Previous order dated 10.01.2017 quashed - Court emphasized the need for compliance with earlier orders and dismissed the appeal on grounds of maintainability. (Paras 3, 6, 25)
(B) Consent Orders - The court held that consent orders must be implemented unless there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance, which were not established by the appellants. (Paras 16, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition, failed to implement the decision regarding financial benefits for faculty members as per earlier court orders, leading to the filing of the intra-Court appeal. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appellants' claims regarding financial hardship and emphasized the necessity of implementing the court's orders. (Paras 18, 25)
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the appeal against a consent order and the justification for not implementing previous court orders. (Paras 7, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellants' failure to implement the orders was unjustifiable, and the appeal was not maintainable as it challenged a consent order. (Paras 25)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
Y. Longkumer, J.
Heard Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Anju, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 8; and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, appearing for respondent no.9.
2. This intra-Court appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020. The appellants were the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the said writ petition, which was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 8. The respondent no. 9 was arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the said writ petition.
3. By the said order, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants as well as the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India to implement the decision as reflected in the order dated 12.01.2016 in respect of the respondent nos.1 to 8 in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, for which a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the order was granted. Resultantly, the order dated 10.01.2017, passed by the Registrar, North East Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli (NERIST for short) (appellant no.2) in respect of the respondent nos.1 to 8 was set aside and quashed. It was further made clear that the said order was passed on its own peculiar facts and should not be treated as a precedent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 8 has submitted that the said writ petition was also filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 8, which is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants.
5. The factual matrix, in brief, on which the W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020 was decided are as follows:
a. The respondent nos. 1 to 8 (i.e. writ petitioners) are working as Professor/ Associate Professor in NERIST.
b. The Registrar, NERIST had issued an order dated 09.05.2013, for upgradation of certain financial benefits, if the faculty members fulfill the criteria mentioned therein.
c. As the said order was not implemented, the respondent nos.1 to 8 had filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 27.04.2016. It would suffice to mention that while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had referred to the order dated 12.01.2016, issued by the appellant no.2, disclosing therein that in the Board meeting, approval was recorded for implementation of the Office Order dated 09.05.2013 and 06/11.09.2013, regarding upgradation of faculty members for placement under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS for short). Accordingly, on recording the stand of NERIST before the writ Court, agreeing to implement the said order/ decision, this Court had formed an opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the writ petition. Accordingly, the said W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, was disposed of by directing that the decision reflected in the order dated 12.01.2016 would be implemented in the case of the respondent nos.1 to 8 as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
d. It would also suffice to mention that the said order dated 27.04.2016, passed in W.P.(C) 94(AP)/2014, had attained finality, having not been put to challenge by anyone including the appellants. However, without implementing the hereinbefore referred orders, the appellants took a U-turn and expressed a contrary view vide Office Order dated 10.01.2017.
e. Accordingly, the respondent nos.1 to 8, who are stated to be also the petitioners in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, again approached this Court and by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020, had laid challenge to the said order dated 10.01.2017.
f. In the proceedings of W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020, the appellants had made an attempt to justify their action on the ground that since the matter involved huge financial implication, the NERIST had no power to take a final decision.
6. Considering all the circumstances and materials available on the
