Sivasankara Panicker Radhakrishnan, C.J.

1. This matter has been placed before the Full Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of his powers conferred under Rule 30(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 (for short High Court Rules). When SWP no.2347-J/2003 came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge felt that the case be referred to a larger Bench since some important questions of law and public importance were involved, warranting a decision by a larger Bench. Learned Judge had also expressed doubt as to whether the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in SWP no. 1309/1998 and connected matters has binding effect on all other Benches of the Court, being a consent order, though as per Rule 34(1) of the High Court Rules every decision of the Full Bench is binding on all Division and Single Benches upon the points of law or usage having the force of law. Full Bench had disposed of the aforesaid writ petition and other connected matters, according to the learned Judge, by way of consent of parties and not by giving any directions of its own. Learned Single Judge while addressing the issue stated as follows:

"... I am of the opinion that the Full Bench of this Court only recorded consent (statements) of the parties and no directions were issued of its own. I have no doubt in my mind that any judgment or order passed by a Division Bench or a Full Bench of this Court has binding force upon me under Rule 34 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999. In the present case, order does not seem to be a judgment of the Court. Yet keeping in view judicial propriety and the highest traditions of this Court and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of J&K PSC v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State and others referred to above and other catena of judgments noticed by the Apex Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta's case, I deem it my obligation to refer this matter to the Larger Bench of this Court."

2. Learned Judge has also referred to the observations of the Apex Court in State of UP v. C. L. Aggarwal, AIR 1997 SC 2431. Noticing that the matter involved important questions of law and public importance, the learned Judge placed the matter before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the questions highlighted by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge formulated the following questions of law for consideration of the larger Bench:

i) Whether the order passed by the Full Bench on the consent of the parties has binding nature on all other Benches of the Court in terms of Rule 34(1) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999?

ii) Whether the State has power to relax the rules of recruitment under the given circumstances? And

iii) Whether the migrant vacancies can be filled up by the regularization of ad hoc appointees where:

(i) the migrant has retired / died and a clear vacancy has become available? And

(ii) the migrant continued to be in service and has lien on the post?

3. Learned Single Judge has purportedly exercised the power conferred upon him under Rule 30(b) of the High Court Rules which reads as follows:

"30. Save as otherwise provided by these rules or other laws or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench.

Provided that-

(b) a Judge sitting alone may, if he thinks fit, refer a case of any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice."

4. In the above Rule instead of `of' the word `on' could have been more appropriately used, however, the meaning is clear in the sense that a Judge may refer any question of law arising in a case before him for decision by a larger Bench if he thinks fit.

5. Mr. A. H. Naik, Learned Advocate General, and Mr. Z. A. Shah, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the parties impleaded, submitted that the learned Singl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document