Case Note & Summary
The case arose out of a dispute over appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology Department in Jammu and Kashmir. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli, the respondent, was selected by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission and placed at serial number 4 in the select list, but he was not appointed to the post. Aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition No. 458/94 before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for his appointment. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the High Court passed certain interim directions. The State did not comply, leading the High Court to pass an order dated 29 May 1995. Clause (i) of that order required the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department, Jammu, to present himself personally before the court on the next date to explain why the court order had not been complied with. Clause (ii) restrained the State from making any appointment to a post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology Department in any medical college pending disposal of the writ petition. The State challenged clause (i) before the Supreme Court by special leave petition, which was granted. The core legal question was whether the High Court could, by way of interim direction, compel the State to implement an appointment when the main writ petition seeking that appointment was still pending and the validity of the select list was in dispute. The respondent argued that the select list had not lapsed and that he was entitled to appointment as per the selection. The State contended that the select list stood lapsed after one year and that the interim direction was premature and amounted to granting the final relief. The Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the select list lapse, as the writ petition was pending before the High Court. However, it held that the High Court may not be justified in calling upon the Government to implement the interim direction, because doing so would amount to overreaching the main relief which ultimately may or may not be granted in the writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside clause (i) of the order dated 29 May 1995, thereby relieving the government official from the obligation of personal appearance. It confirmed clause (ii), which restrained any appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology Department pending disposal of the writ petition. The Court also requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court's order. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Interim Directions in Writ Petitions - Interim Relief Cannot Grant Final Relief - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court had directed the State to appoint the respondent, who was selected but not appointed, and later issued an order requiring the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to appear personally for non-compliance. The Supreme Court held that such interim direction effectively granted the principal relief sought in the writ petition, which was yet to be decided on merits, and therefore amounted to overreaching the main relief. The Court set aside clause (i) of the order dated 29-05-1995 and confirmed clause (ii) restraining new appointments pending disposal. Held that the High Court should not compel compliance with an interim direction that grants final relief before adjudication (Paras not mentioned). B) Service Law - Select List Validity and Lapse - Disputed Question Requires Expeditious Adjudication - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The respondent claimed that the select list prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission had not lapsed, while the State claimed it had lapsed after one year. The Supreme Court declined to express any opinion on merits, as the writ petition was pending, and directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from receipt of the order. Held that the High Court should first decide the disputed lapse of select list on merits rather than through interim orders (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in passing an interim direction requiring the Government to implement the appointment of a selected candidate while the writ petition seeking the same relief was pending and the validity of the select list was disputed; and whether such interim direction amounted to overreaching the main relief sought in the writ petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside clause (i) of the High Court order dated 29-05-1995, which required the personal appearance of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. It confirmed clause (ii), restraining any appointment to a post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology Department in any medical college pending disposal of the writ petition. The Court requested the High Court to dispose of Writ Petition No. 458/94 expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of its order. No costs.
Law Points
- Interim directions in a writ petition cannot grant the main relief sought
- such directions amount to overreaching the final adjudication. The High Court should not compel compliance with an interim direction for final relief before deciding disputed questions such as lapse of select list. Pending disposal
- status quo regarding appointments may be maintained. Writ petitions should be disposed of expeditiously.
