Efficient and concise handling of service law disputes, the importance of documentary evidence, and the need for reforms to expedite the resolution of service law cases.

JUDGMENT

1. For the reasons recorded hereafter, the Registry is directed not to list any fresh RSA for hearing, the subject matter of which is a service law dispute, with effect from 16.3.2020 without the filing counsel: (1) placing on record [at the appropriate place] a brief synopsis of the case with the list of major dates and events; (2) the applicable rules of service; (3) the specific rule/s involved [with photocopy, if in the opinion of the counsel it is fundamental to the understanding of the issue/s in motion hearing [not regular hearing]; (4) attaching a copy of the impugned order/s, with the English translation, if the original is in the vernacular; (5) copies of the basic documents they would refer to [copies of the original with translations]; (6) the law point/s involved for determination; (7) citation of the judgments relied upon, if not the texts, if any, etc. [or at least keep in hand the anticipated documents, adverse orders, precedents handy for production in court at the first hearing in katcha peshi, other than (1) to (4) above, [the rest being optional in the opinion of the counsel if it promotes the case in appeal to be kept ready to be handed over in Court, if found necessary or/and is asked for]. It is clarified that appeal must be entertained to save limitation but appeal be not listed for hearing in absence of compliance of these directions by the registry.

[A]. The necessity for such directions in RSA (Service).

2. These directions are aimed for proper and timely assistance of the Court in rapidly coming to grips with the issue/s arising for determination in a second appeal. This Court should not be taken for granted and be expected to wade through voluminous paper-books and lower court judgments or the testimonies of official witnesses in service law second appeals at the stage of hearing arguments on admission or notice to the respondent/s and to digest them in the brief hearing to produce an order. This Court does not wish to issue notice of motion in utter confusion as the easiest way out. It is the counsel's job to make court understand the case in the fewest words for which he is paid. It is virtually impossible to cull out the issues required to be addressed in a RSA (Service) in the format hitherto adopted in second appeal on a memorandum without a head or tail. Even the prayers in the suit are often not available till the page is pointed out. This wastes a lot of court time. These service law appeals are understood best with the help of counsel throwing up many colours for the court to form an imagery of the case to consider issuing process to the respondents. This is true for both private and State appeals. Concurrent findings and judgments of reversal in service law mean nothing and usually fail to impress as they might do in other litigation on points of fact since a substantial question of law is involved. This is because service law matters are decided on service jurisprudence for which the High Court is best suited to determine. In my personal view the Court can decide a law point in disputes testing administrative decisions on the writ side. The High Court and the Supreme Court alone exercise primary and secondary review of administrative action upholding or impeaching orders, actions and inactions involving infringement of statutory or fundamental rights. The civil court suffers limitations as it cannot sit in appeal or judicial review over administrative orders affecting rights of government servants and is ill-equipped to unravel such rights by a civil decree. It does not enjoy certiorari or mandamus jurisdiction and contends with permanent and mandatory injunctions. Only the simple infractions can go to civil court for resolution. Moreover, its process is dilatory and real relief can be had only in execution proceedings. Order 21 CPC was not designed for service matters in 1908 as an efficacious remedy. Nor did the 1976 amendment help in this regard. Legal battles fought in the ci