AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been presented by the State through the Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Department of Education challenging the correctness
and legality of the order made by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1484/ 96 dated 21111996 on the grounds taken in the appeal.
We have heard Mr. Chohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
The submission of Mr. Chohan, learned counsel for the appellants is that, without going into the merits of the writ petition, the nature of the
interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge in the above said writ petition is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court as far back
as in 1985 in Assistant Collector of Central Excise V/s Dunlop India Ltd. reported in AIR 1985 SC 330. The learned counsel urged that in view of
the law laid by the Supreme Court, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Refering to the salient facts of the case or that it is stated that Mohd Hussain, respondent herein moved a writ petition seeking for writ of
mandamus that he be appointed as ClassIV employee against any existing post in the State of J&K in lieu of his land having been taken away by
the State Govt. for constructing the High School in village Mangote, District Doda in 1981.
Learned Single Judge having accepted the prayer for grant of interim relief sought for at the out set, though he ordered notice to be issued to the
respondents in the writ petition. He passed the following order on 21 11 1996:
Mr. N.P. Kotwal for the petitioner.
Notice.
Reply in six weeks.
IAl/96
Notice as above. Reply within this same time. Two kanals and one marla of land of petitioner was taken by the respondents for the construction of
High School in village Magota District Doda in 1981 with its assurance that the petitioner would be appointed against Class IV post. Land has
since . been utilised as school building has been constructed, but the petitioner has not been appointed against classIV post. His case was
recommended by Education Minister in addition to Head Master of the School and District Education Officer, Doda but the Director of Education
has not made this appointment till date.
Since the land of the petitioner has been utlized by the respondents long back, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be appointed
against classIV post in the department. Respondent have to fulfill the assurance given to the petitioner and no further delay should be there in
fulfilling the same. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner from communication of Headmaster (annexure P3) and Chief Education
Officer, Doda (annexure P4) that posts are available and the application of the petitioner is pending there. Let respondents No.2 & 3 make this
appointment and file the compliance report alongwith the reply"" Jammu 211196 Sd/J
It is this order that is called in question in this LPA.
On the relevant question of law, the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector's case (supra) has laid down as follows:
A tendency to grant interim orders with a great potential for public mischief for the mere asking is deprecated by the Supreme Court. It was
further observed that such interim orders, often ex parte and non speaking are made even by the High Courts while entertaining writ petitions under
Art. 226 of the Constitution, and in the Calcutta High Court, on oral application too.
In para 5 of the judgement their Lordships have observed:
The Supreme Court also deprecated the practice of granting interim order which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no
better reason than that a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a
host of other relevant consideration.
Now, it is brought to our notice that the respondent has initiated the contempt proceedings against the appellants herein for implementation of
the order under appeal as a whole.
In view of the foregoing, it is suffice to say that the orders under appeal cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the order of
the learned Single Judge made on 21111996 in SWP No. 1484/96 is set aside. The matter stands remitted to the writ court with a direction, let
the writ petition be heard and disposed of after hearing learned counsel on both the sides not later than 4th of April, 1997.