Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CJ, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
N RAJEEV KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
G JESSY – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL 1292/2017
Interim - Promotion - W.P.(C) Nos. 19214 & 19338 of 2017 - The court held that interim orders affecting seniority and promotion without considering all affected parties violate due process, warranting their setting aside for a fresh hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged interim orders which altered established seniority and impacted promotion opportunities, claiming significant loss due to these orders.
Issues: Whether the interim orders issued violated principles of due process by affecting promotions and seniority without proper consideration of all affected parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that interim orders should not disrupt established norms, such as seniority, without extensive review and inclusion of all parties concerned.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed, and the interim orders are set aside pending fresh hearing.
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in both the above cases. Being aggrieved by the interim order dated 09.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.19214 of 2017 and order dated 12.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 19338 of 2017 this appeal has been preferred. While admitting the cases for final hearing, the learned single Judge passed a detailed order even though termed as interim in nature, virtually granting the final relief. The orders upset the settled seniority list and it directs for promotions ignoring the said seniority list. It is submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid orders, the appellant who was the 3rd respondent in the writ proceedings, not only lost his seniority, but also lost his chances for promotion. All this by an interim order.
2. We may also notice that yesterday we had dealt with a similar matter where the same order was challenged by a group W.A. Nos.1292 & 1293 of 2017 of persons who were not even made parties and their seniority and chances for promotions were taken away by the same interim order. We have stayed the order of the learned single Judge and directed impleadment of parties and rehearing in the matter.
3. Consequently, we have no other option but to allow these appeals and set aside the order dated 09.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 19214 of 2017 and order dated 12.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.19338 of 2017. The writ petitioners are well advised to add all parties who are affected or likely to be directly affected by the proceedings and the Court is requested to hear the matter afresh after due notice to all parties concerned.
4. We may notice that if there is requirement to make an interregnum arrangement, it would be advisable to finally hear the writ petition and dispose it off at the stage of admission itself after notice to the parties and granting them opportunity to file their respective statements.
W.A. Nos.1292 & 1293 of 2017 With the above observations and directions, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside, subject to the orders that may be passed by the learned single Judge.
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice
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
