Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal filed by the Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee against an order by the Division Bench that directed the creation of an additional post to accommodate the respondent, Lila Pal. The respondent had been appointed on a contingent basis at a nominal salary, and after repeated requests for a permanent post went unheeded, she filed a writ petition. The learned single Judge directed the school authority to pursue the matter for the sanction of an additional post based on increased roll strength. The authority appealed this decision, and the Division Bench ordered the creation of the post within three months and the commencement of the respondent's regular emoluments within six months. The Supreme Court, however, held that the creation of posts is an executive function and not within the purview of the judiciary, referencing a precedent that emphasized this separation of powers. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of both the lower courts, allowing the appeal without costs. The respondent's counsel indicated a desire to file a representation before the appropriate authority, which the Court noted without further comment.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Creation of Posts - Judicial Authority - Courts cannot direct creation of posts - The prerogative to create and sanction posts lies with executive or legislative authorities, not the judiciary - Supreme Court held that both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified in directing the creation of a post, thus setting aside their orders (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts have the authority to direct the creation of posts within an organization.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, and stated that the creation of posts is not within the judicial domain.
Law Points
- Judicial authority
- executive function
- creation of posts
- prerogative of executive
- judicial review
