Judicial discipline requires courts to uphold precedents set by coordinate benches unless overruled, ensuring consistent treatment of similar cases.

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

1. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5789 of 2001, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent was allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 14.11.1998 and the writ petitioner-respondent was ordered to be reinstated in the services forthwith. It was held that the petitioner will not be paid salary for the period, he remained out of service applying the principle no work no pay. However, it was clarified that petitioner shall be entitled for all other consequential benefits i.e. increments, length of service, promotion etc.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the writ petitioner was appointed illegally, that too by a person, who was not authorized to appoint, which fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. He submits that when the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal, this Letters Patent Appeal should be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. An illegal appointee does not have any right to occupy the post.

3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent submits that vide the impugned order dated 14.11.1998 not only the petitioner, but several other persons were also removed from the services on the same ground as taken by the State against the petitioner. Several writ petitions were filed by persons aggrieved by the said impugned order and the said writ petitions were allowed. In most of the cases, the orders passed in the writ petitions were not challenged by the State rather they have accepted the same and reinstated those persons. In respect of writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.82 of 1999(R), a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the State, which was dismissed but thereafter the State did not move the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that since the case of the writ petitioner-respondent is exactly similar to that of the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.82 of 1999(R) and several other writ petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and the State had accepted the said orders, this Letters Patent Appeal also needs to be dismissed.

4. From the records, we find that the writ petitioner-respondent along with several others were dismissed from service. The dismissal order is a common order dated 14.11.1998. The aggrieved persons filed writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No.4206 of 1999, which was allowed on 08.03.2000; C.W.J.C. No.3007 of 1997, which was also allowed. Further, three connected writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No.11951 of 1998, C.W.J.C. No.275 of 1999 and C.W.J.C. No.412 of 1999 were also allowed vide judgment dated 14.10.1999. During course of argument, it has been admitted by the parties that these orders were accepted by the State and were not challenged before the Division Bench.

5. Order passed in C.W.J.C. No.82 of 1999(R) and C.W.J.C. No.5857 of 1999, which were in favour of the aggrieved persons, were challenged by the State in Letters Patent Appeals (which is evident from the impugned order), but the same were dismissed.

6. The State-appellant argued that in one writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5697 of 2001, learned Single Judge had taken a different view from the view taken in the other writ petitions and upheld the dismissal.

We find that while passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge also had taken note of this fact and had arrived at a finding that the learned Coordinate Bench could not have taken a different view ignoring the orders passed in the Letters Patent Appeals. In the impugned order, learned Single Judge had held that the ratio followed in the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No.82 of 1999(R) a