DR. MANJU VARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 17-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
<"._ 
DR. MANJU VARMA 
v. 
ST:\TE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 2004 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 13~pecial leave-Grant of-Chief Justice of Allahabad High 
c Court transferred a writ petition from Lucknow Bench to Allahabad Bench 
under Para 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 
1948-Appeal against-Maintainability of-He/d:-The order passed by the 
Chief Justice is, if not judicial, at least quasi-judicial-The Chief Justice 
acted as a judicial authority with all the attributes of a court-Hence, appeal 
D under Art. 136 maintainable. 
United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation} Order, 1948 : 
\ 
Paragraph 14-Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court transferred a 
E 
writ petition from Lucknow Bench to Allahabad Bench-Matter already 
heard by Lucknow Bench and judgment was reserved-Validity of-Order 
transferring the case-Held : Cases in which the Lucknow Bench would 
otherwise have the jurisdiction may be transferred to Allahabad Bench-
However, the power of transfer has to be exercised for having the matter 
heard at Allahabad-Since the matter was already heard by the Lucknow 
F Bench, the order of Chief Justice liable to be set aside. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court 
relating to the seniority list of the Readers in Obstetrics and Gynecology 
in the State medical Colleges. The appellant sought for promotion from 
G 
the date her juniors were given promotion. One of her juniors was added 
Lio 
as respondent No. 6 in the writ petition. Respondent No. 6 had filed a 
writ petition in 2000 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court 
relating to the same issue, which was rejected by the High Court on the 
ground, that the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain the 
writ petition. Respondent No. 6 had challenged this order by way of civil -.. 
~ 
H revision which was pending. Independent of this, a second writ petition 
~
22 
I. 
DR. MAN JU VARMA v. ST A TE 
23 
was filed by respondent No. 6 in the High Court of Allahabad in 2001 A 
pertaining to the issuance of an appointment order to her as a Reader. 
Respondent No. 6 had obtained an interim order in this writ petition. 
f 
A Bench of two Judges heard the appellant's writ petition 
inconclusively as one of the Judges was transferred. During this period, B 
the pleadings were complete. The matter then appeared in the list, 
before two Judges. An application was filed for adjournment by 
respondent No. 6, which was rejected on the ground that it was a device 
to get an appointment order issued in her favour in her writ petition, 
and the matter was directed to be proceeded with. It was then that 
respondent No. 6 filed an application for transfer of the appellant's writ C 
petition from Lucknow to Allahabad. The appellant's writ petition was 
taken up for hearing and after conclusion of arguments judgment was 
reserved. Six months later, the Chief Justice of the High Court allowed 
the application of respondent No. 6 for transfer under paragraph 14 of 
the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. Hence D 
the appeal. 
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was 
not maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution as the impugned 
order was not an "order" passed by a "court" or a "tribunal" but was 
an order passed on the administrative side. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Article 136 of the Constitution confers broad powers on 
this Court to grant ~pecial leave to appeal from any order whether an F 
appeal lies from such an order under law or not. Two conditions must 
be satisfied for invoking Article 136(1) : [28-G-H; 29-E-G] 
(1) The proposed appeal mast be against a judicial or quasi-judicial 
and not a purely executive or administrative order; and 
(2) The determination or order must have been made or passed by 
any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India. (28-G-H; 29-EG) 
G 
I 
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. The Hind Cycles ltd., (1963) Supp. 
1 SCR 625, relied on. 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
,_ 
A 
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., 
[2002] 2 sec 388, referred to. 
2. Generally speaking if there is a contest between two contending 
parties and a statutory authority is required to adjudicate upon the 
. B competing contentions then the act is a quasi-judicial one. [29-G-H; 30-A) 
Indian National Congress (1) v. Institute of Social Welfa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.