Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Satyadeo Mohan Ghosh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.654 of 2018 With W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016 With W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016 With W.P.(S) No.3031 of 2016 With W.P.(S) No.5726 of 2017 With W.P.(S) No.8 of 2018 With W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2018
Decided On : 28-02-2025
(A) Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, 2016 - Cases involving challenges to provisions - The court addressed issues regarding the segregation of cases listed for hearing and the rationale behind it. The court found discrepancies in the listing process and sought explanations from the office. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Administrative Procedure - The court emphasized the need for all related cases to be heard together to ensure consistency in judgments. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The court examined the listing of multiple writ petitions concerning the Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, noting irregularities in the segregation of cases and lack of clear orders for their separate listings.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that all seven writ petitions be listed together for final hearing.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the procedural integrity of case listings and the administrative authority over case management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of administrative clarity in case management and the necessity for related cases to be heard together to maintain judicial consistency.
Result: The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice.
ORDER :
1. Reference be made to the order dated 27.01.2025 on which date three cases were listed on Board, i.e., W.P.(S) No.654 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.5726 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2018.
2. This Court, while going through the records, has found from the order sheets that on 07.01.2019, altogether seven cases, i.e. W.P.(S) No.654 of 2018, W.P(S) No.2189 of 2018, W.P(S) No.5726 of 2017, W.P(S) No.3027 of 2016, W.P(S) No.2984 of 2016, W.P(S) No.3031 of 2016 and WP (S) No.8 of 2018 were listed together. On that date, all the seven cases were heard and directed to be listed on 08.01.2019. But, very surprisingly, on 08.01.2019 only 4 cases, i.e., W.P.(S) No.08 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.654 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2018 and W.P.(S) No.5726 of 2017 were listed.
3. Thereafter, on 27.01.2025 only three cases were listed on Board.
4. This Court did not find any order on the record to show that three cases were directed to be listed separately and also failed to understand that why and how without any order of segregation, four cases were removed from the list and that is the reason, this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 had sought for explanation from the office as to why W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.3031 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.08 of 2018 have been segregated from present writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.654 of 2018 which has been listed along with W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2018 and W.P.(S) No.5726 of 2017.
5. Further, vide aforesaid order dated 27.01.2025 direction was also given to list all the seven cases together, i.e. W.P.(S) No.654 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.5726 of 2017, W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.3031 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.8 of 2018 on 17th February 2025. For ready reference the aforesaid order dated 27.01.2025 is being quoted as under.
“The matter is being listed today for final disposal of the writ petitions along with W.P.(S) No.5726 of 2017 with W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2018.
2. This Court before commencement of hearing of the matter, has gone through the order No.3 dated 25th June 2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court where order has been passed to list this case along with WP(S) No.3027 of 2016, WP(S) No.2984 of 2016 and WP(S) No.3031 of 2016.
3. It further appears from the order dated 24th July 2018 passed in WP(S) No.3027 of 2016 that WP(S) No.3027 of 2016 was listed along with WP(S) No. 2984 of 2016 With WP(S) No. 3031 of 2016 with WP(S) No.654 of 2018, i.e. the present writ petition and with WP(S) No. 8 of 2018 along with WP(S) No.5726 of 2017.
4. It further appears from the order dated 13th December 2018 that the present writ petition i.e. WP(S) No.654 of 2018 was listed along with WP(S) No.2189 of 2018 and WP(S) No.8 of 2018, wherein the order was passed by the coordinate Bench to list WP(S) No.654 of 2018 with WP(S) No.2189 of 2018 and WP(S) No.8 of 2018, also along with WP(S) No.3027 of 2016, WP(S) No.2984 of 2016, WP(S) No.3031 of 2016 and WP(S) No.5726 of 2017.
5. Thereafter, the present writ petition, i.e. WP(S) No.654 of 2018 was listed on 07th January 2019 along with WP(S) No.2189 of 2018, WP(S) No.8 of 2018, WP(S) No.2984 of 2016, WP(S) No.3027 of 2016, WP(S) No.3031 of 2016 and with WP(S) No.5726 of 2017.
6. But, it appears from the subsequent order passed by the coordinate Bench dated 8th January 2019 that this writ petition WP(S) No.654 of 2018 had been listed along with WP(S) No.2189 of 2018 with WP(S) No.5726 of 2017 and with WP(S) No.8 of 2018, but the writ petitions being WP(S) No.3027 of 2016, WP(S) No.2984 of 2016 and WP(S) No.3031 of 2016 was not listed along with these cases, which was ordered to be listed on 13th December 2018.
7. Thereafter, the present writ petition had only listed along with WP(S) No.2189 of 2018 with WP(S) No.5726 of 2017 and with WP(S) No.08 of 2018, leaving aside the writ petition being WP(S) No.3027 of 2016, WP(S) No.2984 of 2016 and WP(S) No.3031 of 2016 and accordingly the present writ petition had been
The court emphasized the necessity for related cases to be heard together to ensure judicial consistency and addressed discrepancies in case listing procedures.
Judicial efficiency in managing writ petitions involves ensuring defect-free submissions and proper tagging of cases to facilitate streamlined court proceedings.
The court established that strict adherence to the roster system for case management is essential to ensure judicial efficiency and prevent confusion in the handling of related cases.
The Chief Justice has inherent authority to assign cases, and any adjudication made without such assignment is void; however, a Division Bench retains jurisdiction if generally authorized to hear any....
Judicial procedures for case listings must adhere strictly to established protocols to avoid improper actions by court staff.
Revisions to seniority lists in public service must comply with established legal principles regarding merit and prior judicial directives, preserving previously established ranks unless lawfully cha....
The authority of the Chief Justice to issue administrative directives is absolute and such directives should align with established rules without requiring concurrence from the Full Court.
The court clarified the application of Section 10 of CPC, emphasizing that only substantively identical issues warrant a stay to prevent parallel proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
