Srikanth Tikoo vs The State of Haryana and others

R.S. Narula, C.J.—This is an appeal by the successful writ-petitioner who had been dismissed by the Municipal Committee of Gharaunda from the post of Secretary to that Committee, whose appeal against the order of his dismissal from service had been accepted by the order of the Commissioner, dated February 12, 1970 (Annexure ''B'') but whose dismissal had been revived by the order of the State Government on an application of the Municipal Committee u/s 237 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as applicable to the State of Haryana. He came to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order of the State Government, dated May 19, 1971 (Annexure ''D'') quashing the order of the Commissioner (whereby the Commissioner had set aside the order of his dismissal),? and the subsequent order of the State Government, dated April 14, 1972 (Annexure ''F'') refusing to review the order Annexure ''D'' while allowing the writ petition and quashing the two impugned orders (Annexures ''D'' and ''F''), the learned Judge was persuaded by the respondent Municipal Committee to quash in addition the order of the Commissioner (Annexure ''B'') in favour of the appellant.

The only argument advanced by Mr. J. S. Chawla, the learned counsel for the appellant, in this case is that after granting to the appellant the relief claimed by him in this writ petition, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to go further, and also set aside and quash the earlier order of the Commissioner which was in favour of the appellant without any petition for quashing the same having been filed in this Court by the Municipal Committee or the State Government. We find force in this argument of Mr. Chawla. In L.P.A. 65 of 1973-Z). K. Soni v. The State of Punjab LPA 65 of 1973, and eight others, decided on May 22, 1974, a Division Bench of this Court (Tuli and Dhillon. JJ., per Tuli, J., Dhillon, J. Concurring) held that the appeal filed by the affected respondents in a writ petition against the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the State of the Punjab and the Chief Engineer to "consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of qualifications as are required to be possessed under the Rules" must succeed as the impugned direction went beyond the prayer in the writ petition. The learned Judges held :--

These appeals deserve to succeed on the short ground that there was no such prayer in any of the petitions seeking a direction to the State of Punjab, and the Chief Engineer in the terms in which the learned Single Judge issued the direction. The relief granted to the petitioners went far beyond what they had prayed for and what was argued before the learned Single Judge. When the learned Judge refused to quash the impugned orders, there was no occasion for such a direction being issued. Consequently, these appeals are accepted and the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is set a side.

The case before us seems to be even stronger than the case of D.K. Soni and others (supra). The appellant came to this Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the the State Government whereby the Commissioner''s order in favour of the appellant annulling his dismissal from service by the Municipal Committee had been set aside. The appellant succeeded in persuading the learned Judge to hold that the impugned orders of the State Government were without jurisdiction, and were liable to be annulled. The learned Judge had, in our opinion, no jurisdiction thereafter to go into the validity or legality of the final order of the Commissioner in favour of the appellant which had not been impugned before this Court in any proceedings. Things could certainly have been different if in the situation in which the Municipal Committee was placed it had immediately filed a writ petition praying for quashing the order of the Commissioner in case the orders of the State Government were held to be in valid. For the reasons best known to the Municipal Committee it did not follow that course. That being the situation, the veil of finality hung against the order of the Commissioner so far as the writ petition from which this appeal has arisen was concerned.

Mr. Siri Chand Goyal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Municipal Committee, contended that if we finally form the view which have formed and expressed above, we should hear him on the question of the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge regarding the jurisdiction of the State Government to pass the order Annexure ''D'' whereby the Commissioner''s decision was reversed. We regret our inability to agree to follow this course for the simple reason that neither the Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, nor the State Government has preferred any appeal against the order of Tuli, J. in a situation like this, that much of the order of the learned Single Judge which is in favour of the appellant has attained finality so far as this Court is concerned and it is not open to Mr. Goyal to try to persuade us to vary or reverse that order.

No other point was argued before us in this case. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the Commissioner, dated February 12, 1970 (Annexure ''B'' to the writ petition), and the direction to the Commissioner to decide the case afresh. The result is that the order of the State Government, dated May 19, 1971 (Annexure ''D''), and all subsequent proceedings before the State Government stand quashed, and the order of the Commissioner, dated February 12, 1970 (Annexure ''B''), holds the field. The costs of this appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred by them.