COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH
A
AND MEDICAL EDU. DEPTT. CIVIL SECTT., JAMMU
v.
DR. ASHOK KUMAR KOHLI
OCTOBER 31, 1995
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KlRPAL, JJ.]
Practice & procedure :
Writ petition before High Court-Jnte1im directions-Held, High Court C
not justified in passing inte1im relief which amounted to over reaching the
main relief
The respondent was selected by the State Public Service Commission
and was placed at serial No. 4, in the select list. Since he was not appointed
he filed a Writ petition in the High Court. The State Government resisted D
the claim contended that the select list stood lapsed with the expiry of one
year. This was denied by the respondent. The High Court passed certain
interim· orders and later passed an order directing the appellant to be
present before the Court and to explain as to why and for which reasons
the Court order was not complied with. Aggrieved, the State filed the E
appeal by special leave.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : The High Court was not justified in calling upon the
Government to implement the interim directions. It would amount to over p
reaching the main relief which ultimately may or may not be passed in the
writ petition. The said directions stand set aside. [624-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10403 of
1995
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.95 of the Jammu &
Kashmir High Court in C.0.A. (SWP) No. 236 of 1995.
Ashok Mathur for the Appellant.
G
Anu Mohla, Yatish Mohan and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondent.
H
623
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. We are concerned in this
appeal with clause (i) of the order dated May 29, 1995, namely, "the
B
commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Educa-
tion Department, .lammu shall present himself in the Court on the next
date to inform the Court as to why and for what reasons the Court order
has not been complied with." with regard to clause (ii) of the order, we are
not interfering.
c
It would appear that Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli was
one of the
candidates selected by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission
and stood at No. 4 in the select list. He was not appointed to the post of
lecturer in Opthomology Department of Jammu & Kashmir. He sought a
writ of mandamus in W.P. 458/94. Pending disposal of the writ petition,
D certain directions seems to have been issued by the High Court and for its
non-compliance, the above order came to be passed. For his entitlement
to be appointed to. the post pursuant to the selection made by the Public
Service Commission, Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli has taken the stand that the
select list had not lapsed while the Government's stand is that the list stood
E
F
lapsed with the expiry of one year. Since the writ petition is pending, we
are not expressing any opinion on merits. Suffice it to say that since the
-controversy is yet to be decided, perhaps the High Court may not be
justified in calling upon the Government to implement the interim direc-
tion. In other words, it would amount to over reaching the main relief which
ultimately may or may not he passed in the writ petition. The aforesaid
directions stanJ set aside an<l the second direction not to 1nakc any
appointment to a post of Lecturer in Opthomology Department in any of
the medical colleges pending disposal, stands confirmed. The High Court
is requested to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this
G
order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex