Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment and order of the division bench of Calcutta High Court, which, while deciding an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, allowed the respondents’ writ petition, and directed the Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (‘GRSE Ltd’), to appoint 48 out of the 51 writ petitioners on compassionate grounds, the division bench of Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. concluded that any adjudication beyond the allocated jurisdiction is void and must be treated as a nullity. It emphasized that the Chief Justice of the High Court, as primus inter pares, holds the exclusive authority to set the roster, and such roster is final and binding on all Companion Justices of the court. Therefore, the Court held that both the order dated 11-03-2024, and the impugned order were passed without jurisdiction and could not be sustained in law.
Background
The subject matter of the writ petition concerned refusal to offer compassionate appointment by GRSE Ltd. to the writ petitioners.
The Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 21-02-2022 (under challenge in the intra-court appeal) had de-listed the writ petition awaiting a decision of this Court on the reference made to a larger bench in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600, with liberty to mention after the reference is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617.
Issue
Whether judicial discipline and propriety, in the light of Rule 26 of Rules of High Court at Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, (‘The Rules’) in relation to applications under Article 226 thereof and the powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court as the master of the roster, were maintained.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the decision at the relevant time had settled the issue regarding the applicable policy for considering applications for compassionate appointment. However, the Single Judge refrained from proceeding with the writ petition on the specious ground of a pending reference. While the Single Judge may not have been entirely justified in de-listing the writ petition on this basis and should have proceeded with its final adjudication in light of the prevailing law, no rights of the parties were determined, and no judgment was rendered in the context of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, it remains debatable whether an intra-court appeal could have been maintained before the Appellate Court against the order of de-listing, particularly in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania (1981) 4 SCC 8. Even if such an intra-court appeal were maintainable, the writ petition had not been finally adjudicated, and since it was merely de-listed with liberty to be mentioned after the reference was answered, the most appropriate course of action would have been to request the Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with the law. The Court found it perplexing, however, that the Division Bench proceeded to hear and decide the writ petition.
The Court took note of the Rule 26 of the Rules and said that since the Single Judge had not referred the writ petition to a bench of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench erred in accepting the parties’ suggestion and proceeding to hear the writ petition without authorization from the Chief Justice. The Court emphasised the well-settled principle that ‘consent does not confer jurisdiction’ and stated that a judicial order based on the parties’ consent, which contravenes the Writ Rules and overrides the Chief Justice’s determination, could not have vested jurisdiction in the Appellate Court to hear the pending writ petition. Consequently, the Division Bench that passed the impugned order lacked the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition merely based on the earlier order dated 11-03-2024. The Court observed that the Division Bench had the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the absence of proper determination.
The Court observed that the cause-list of the predecessor Division Bench on 11-03-2024, as well as on 16-08-2024, when the writ petition was reserved for judgment, and 04-09-2024, when it was allowed, revealed that the Bench was designated to hear “Appeal from Order Relating to Service (Group VI) Including Applications Connected Thereto”. However, as per the roster set by the Chief Justice, the determination to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ was assigned only to Single Benches on the relevant dates.
Given this clear allocation of jurisdiction, the Court held that neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the later Division Bench of the High Court had the authority to assume jurisdiction over the writ petition merely because they had jurisdiction over appeals from orders passed in such writ petitions. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is determined strictly by the Chief Justice’s allocation and cannot be assumed by a Bench outside the assigned determination.
After referring to the law laid down in Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1990 Cal 168, approved by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1 and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196, as well as Rule 26 of the Rules, the Court held that any order which a bench – comprising of two judges or a single judge – may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, such an order is without jurisdiction.
The Court concluded that any adjudication beyond the allocated jurisdiction is void and must be treated as a nullity. It emphasized that the Chief Justice of the High Court, as primus inter pares, holds the exclusive authority to set the roster, as reaffirmed in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all Companion Justices of the court.
Therefore, the Court held that both the order dated 11-03-2024, and the impugned order were passed without jurisdiction and could not be sustained in law.
The Court, without delving into the merits of the rival claims, set aside the impugned order on the limited ground of lack of jurisdiction and ordered a remand. Consequently, the writ petition was revived and placed back on the file of the High Court.
The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for expeditious disposal, preferably within six months, considering the prolonged wait of the respondents for compassionate appointment and the GRSE Ltd. stance on the issue.
Additionally, the Court recorded the statement of GRSE Ltd., assuring that no appointment would be made until the High Court finally disposes of the writ petition. Thus, the Court declined to pass any interim order or extend the ad-interim order dated 01-08-2016, keeping the matter open for the High Court’s fresh adjudication.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India HERE
