Judicial discipline and propriety – Principles of – Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 1966 – r.26 – Letters Patent – cl.15 – Intra-court appeal – Adjudication by bench of High Court without allocation by Chief Justice – Validity – Writ petition filed in the High Court pertaining to compassionate appointment to the writ petitioners – Single Judge of the High Court delisted the writ petition awaiting a decision of this Court on the reference made to a larger bench with liberty to mention after the reference is answered – Single Judge, despite referring to the decision of the Supreme Court that had settled the issue as regards the policy for compassionate appointment, refrained from proceeding with hearing of the writ petition on the specious ground of the pending reference – Intra-court appeal before the appellate court-Division Bench against the order of delisting, on the suggestion of the parties for disposal of the writ by the appellate court – Order passed by the predecessor Division Bench, pursuant thereto records of the writ petition were placed before the Division Bench that passed the impugned order – Challenge to:
Held: Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court – 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, is without jurisdiction – Adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity – On facts, even if an intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of delisting, at the highest, intervention to the limited extent of requesting the Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law was open and permissible – Single Judge not having referred the writ petition to a bench of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench was not correct in accepting the suggestion of the parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition without having any authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf – Consent does not confer jurisdiction – Judicial order based on consent of the parties, is against the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition – As per the roster set by the Chief Justice, determination was not given either to the predecessor Division Bench or to the Division Bench to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ of the Classification List, but to the Single Benches on the relevant dates – Thus, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the writ petition – Order by the predecessor Division Bench and the impugned order without jurisdiction – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court – Constitution of India – Arts.225, 226. [Paras 7-10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.