ITEM NO. MM-9A COURT NO. 9 SECTION XI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2010
CC 14694-14695/2010
(From the judgment and order dated 16/07/2010 in WP No. 1872/1986
of the High Court of U.P. at Lucknow)
State of U.P. & Ors. .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Neeraj Chaubey & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file SLP and prayer for interim relief and
office report )
Date: 16/09/2010 These Petitions were called on for mentioning today.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
For Petitioners(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shail K. Dwivedi, AAG
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vivek Raj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Karunesh S. Pawar, Adv.
Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.
UPON being mentioned the Court made the following
ORDER
1
Permission to file SLPs is granted.
Taken on board.
State of U.P. and their officials aggrieved by the interim
orders dated 16.07.2010 and 25.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.
1872 of 1986 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow have filed the above SLPs.
W.P. No. 1872 of 1986 was filed by one Dr. Neeraj
Chaubey for redressal of his grievance regarding an
advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant
Professor. In the said advertisement, the eligibility criteria was
fixed as teaching experience of 7 years whereas according to
the Statutory Rules, the teaching experience required is only 5
years. The aforesaid writ petition was not listed as per the
directions of the Division Bench of the High Court which
passed the impugned order. The Registry of the High Court
was directed to show cause as well as a cost of Rs. 2,000/-
was also awarded on the Joint Registrar of the High Court. In
response to the aforesaid direction, one of the officials of the
Registry in his affidavit highlighted certain problems about
want of space for keeping the court records, sitting space for
2
officials and officers of the Registry. Taking note of the said
facts, the Division Bench, in the order dated 16.07.2010,
directed the State Government to submit a Status Report
about sanctioning of funds for construction of new High Court
Building Complex at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. It is further
seen that even after filing of Status Report and affidavit
highlighting the steps taken, by the impugned order dated
25.08.2010, the same Division Bench directed the Cabinet
Secretary, the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary (Law),
State of U.P. and Member Secretary, Planning Commission
and representative of Ministry of Law and Justice not below
the rank of Joint Secretary, Government of India to appear in
person along with the records on the next date of hearing on
20.09.2010. Questioning both the above said directions, State
of U.P. filed these SLPs.
Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for
Oudh Bar Association.
Though Oudh Bar Association is not a party in these
SLPs, but considering the importance of the issue, the said
3
Bar Association intends to file appropriate petition before the
High Court for construction of the new High Court Building
Complex at Lucknow. We heard their counsel also.
At the outset, we may point out that directions regarding
construction of new High Court building and early sanction of
required funds for execution of the work cannot be faulted
with. In fact, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow needs more spacious building as
early as possible. However, we are concerned about the
procedure adopted by the Division Bench issuing such
directions in an unconnected matter treating it as PIL and
keeping the issue before the same Bench.
In this regard, it is brought to our notice that the Full
Bench decision of the same High Court of Allahabad, while
answering the reference made to a larger bench in W.P. No.
34197 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Dixit & Ors. vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) decided on 13.09.2010, dealt with the issues involved
herein.
The High Court had taken note of various judgments of
this Court including State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, AIR
4
1982 SC 1198; Inder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996)
6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand & Ors.,
(1998) 1 SCC 1, R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District
Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai & Anr., (2000) 2
SCC 391 and Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC
294 and various judgments of High Courts and came to the
conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The
Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the
matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows
not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of
Section 51 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but
inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice
enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a
Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench
or Full Bench. He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be
heard by which Bench. If the Judges were free to choose their
jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever
case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the
court would collapse and the judicial work of the court would
cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering
5
for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The Court
held that a Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume
jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if the
case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict
adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining
judicial discipline and proper functioning of the court. No
departure from this procedure is permissible.
In case an application is filed and the Bench comes to the
conclusion that it involves some issues relating to public
interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a Public Interest
Litigation but the court has its option to convert it into a
Public Interest Litigation and ask the Registry to place it before
a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as per the
Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the Chief Justice
but the Bench cannot convert itself into a PIL and proceed
with the matter itself.
In view of the decision of the Full Bench of the High
Court of Allahabad, which we hold is in accordance with law
and in consonance with the rules and procedure, Mr. Harish
N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-State of
6
U.P., seeks permission to move an application in respect of the
matter in issue before the Chief Justice of the High Court for
appropriate directions. We permit the State to move such
application. The impugned order directing the officials to
appear before the Court on 20.09.2010 shall remain stayed.
The present order of stay shall continue till further orders
being passed by the appropriate Bench dealing with the PIL
after the orders of the Chief Justice.
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Oudh Bar Association
informed this Court that the Association intends to file an
independent petition in respect of the matter in issue, namely,
construction of High Court building. We make it clear that the
Bar Association is free to move such writ petition before the
appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over PIL.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
[Usha Bhardwaj] [Savita Sainani]
Court Master Court Master
7