Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.K.Singh, Shishir Kumar, Alok Kumar Singh, JJ.
High Court of Judicature At Allahabad -Appellant
Versus
Diwakar Singh and others -Respondent
Special Appeal Nos. 387 and 388 of 2010
Decided On : 16-04-2010
Powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice - Appointment of Daily Labour - Rules 1976, Article 229 of the Constitution of India - Rules 4, 41, 45, High Court Rules, Allahabad High Court Staff Car Drivers (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 2000 - Stay granted by learned Single Judges beyond the scope of writ petitions - Stay granted by the Bench
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed in relation to the orders passed by the learned Single Judges regarding the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in relation to the appointment of certain persons as daily labour to discharge certain work. The relief sought in the writ petitions included mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for certain posts and participation in interviews for recruitment. The court analyzed the relief sought in the writ petitions and the pleadings, and found that the injunction granted by the learned Single Judges was beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injunction granted by the learned Single Judges was beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petitions and was not warranted. The court also observed that the relief sought in the writ petitions did not challenge the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, but rather sought suitable appointment based on the same process applied to others. The court also noted that the learned Single Judges made comments on the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice without any reference to the context and without any complaint or challenge to his powers.
Issues: The issues included the scope of the relief sought in the writ petitions, the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, and the validity of the injunction granted by the learned Single Judges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought in the writ petitions did not challenge the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, but rather sought suitable appointment based on the same process applied to others. The court also found that the injunction granted by the learned Single Judges was beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petitions and was not warranted. The court emphasized the need for a complaint or challenge to the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice before making comments on his powers.
Final Decision: The court stayed the directions given by the learned Single Judges in the writ petitions, allowing the engagement of class IV posts in the establishment of the High Court and directing that engagement be given to selected candidates, subject to final decision in the matter. The court made it clear that the directions issued were on a prima facie satisfaction and subject to final decision as and when it takes place.
These are two special appeals i.e. Special Appeal No. 388 of 2010 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 10196 of 2010 hereinafter referred to as 1st Appeal and Special Appeal No. 387 of 2010 against the judgment of another Single Judge dated 23.2.2010 passed in writ petition No. 7212 of 2010, hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Appeal.
2. As both the appeals are clubbed and they need a decision on the same issue, are taken up together.
3. Both the special appeals came to be filed in relation to the orders passed by the learned Single Judges touching the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in relation to the appointment of certain persons as daily labour to discharge certain work. Besides aforesaid two appeals there are large number of other appeals and more than dozen of writ petitions which are also directed to be clubbed with these two matters for being decided by the Bench. As on date we could not bifurcate large number of matters so clubbed due to paucity of time as most of them relate to the appointment in the district judgeship either on Class IV or on Class III posts or even in the establishment of this Court made much earlier.
4. As on date in these two appeals argument on the question of grant of interim stay to the orders of learned Single Judge was only heard. There is restraint order passed in writ petitions by which the establishment has been restrained from giving effect to certain exercises which but for the small formalities is otherwise complete.
5. To make it more precise the writ petition No. 10196 of 2010 has been directed to be listed and heard in due course but three directions are issued which are to be quoted here for convenience-
a) In view of the conceded position by the High Court through its counsel as noted above, no further appointment on Class IV posts covered by Rule 4(a) of the Rules, 1976 in the establishment of the High Court both at Allahabad and at Lucknow, shall be made in any capacity except after due publication in newspapers having wide and adequate circulation.
b) It shall be open to the High Court to take work or not to take work either from the respondents no. 04 to 16 or any such engagements that have been made along with the said respondents on or any date subsequent to the date of their appointment in the establishment of the High Court. However, they shall not be paid their salary without the leave of the Court.
c) Respondents no. 04 to 16 and similarly situate persons shall not be regularized nor they shall be granted any preference in terms of Rule 4 at the time of regular appointment.
6. Similarly in the writ petition No. 7212 of 2010 although writ petition has been directed to be heard and decided in due course but following restraint order has been passed-
"Accordingly the respondent High Court is restrained from giving effect to the selections in any manner whatsoever. The selected candidates are reported to have not been issued any letters of appointment so far nor have they been permitted to join. Accordingly the High Court shall neither issue any letters of appointment to such selected candidates nor shall they be permitted to join or receive any benefits arising out of the selections."
7. Before we start to deal with the matter we are to hurriedly notice the relief sought in writ petition No. 10196 of 2010 and writ petition No. 7212 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 1st writ petition and 2nd writ petition respectively).
8. In the 1st writ petition main relief as claimed is as below-
1. issue,a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of the peon for which application has been submitted on dated 11.1.2010 and earlier application dated 11.1.2007 and 03.01.2006 was duly recommended by the Hon'ble Justice R.P. Mishra and Justice C.P. Mishra.
2. Issue, a writ, order or dir
AI
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
