LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A v. "' SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS. "'' DECEMBER 20, 1991 [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. S. VERMA AND S. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 136, 141, 142-Court' s decision-When is a precedent---Neces- .... sity of assigning reasons, explained-Whether it is imperative on Supreme Court to assign reasons for every order. c Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-High Court's power~Whether circum- scribed by limitations discussed and declared by judicial decisions. The respondents who were appointed as part-time lecturers on the D specific conditions that they would be paid on hourly basis and would be removed at any time without notice, as provided in the Instructfons of the Director of Education, State of Punjab, issued in 1990, filed a writ petition 1 before the High Court claiming their regularisation as lecturers on regular pay scale. The appellants refuted petitioners' claim and filed a detailed written E statement distinguishing part-time appointees from the regularly ap- pointed lacturers. It was also pointed out that similar petitions were ear- lier dismissed by this Court. The High Court, without dealing with any of the points raised by the F appellants, allowed the writ petition by a cryptic order. In appeal by special leave to this Court filed by the appellants, the respondents supported the High Court's order contending that this Court issued directions for absorption of temporary or ad-hoc government ~ servants on permanent basis in several cases and, therefore, it should be G open to the High Court as well to allow writ petitions 'in similar terms. -- Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1.1 A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. [p. 556 CJ H 553 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. A 1.2 In the instant case, the respondents were not entitled to rely upon . :.,.. an order of this Court directing a temporary employee to be regularised :-4 in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for special grounds which must have been available to the temporary employ·. ees in particular cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. [p. 556CJ ...,. B Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this ' Court, it cannot be understood to have been passed without an adequate legal basis therefor. [p. 556 CD] 2.1 It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case or this Court. c [p. 556EJ 2.2 On the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order a distinction has to be kept in mind between a Court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for D disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. [556 DJ , 2.3 The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary ''for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it", which authority the High Court does not enjoy. [p. 556 EFJ E 3.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims -,.. or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge. [p. 556 FGJ F 3.2 The High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion in deciding writ petitions or Civil revision applications but this discretion has to be confined in declining to entertain petitions and refusing to grant relief, asked for by petitioners, on adequate considerations: and it does not permit the High Court to grant relief ~n such a consideration alone. '· [p. 556 GHJ ,,,,...._ G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 5060of1991. -....- From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1991 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3150/91. A.S.Sohal and G.K.Bansal for the Appellants. H Sanjay Kapur and R.P.Kapur for the Respondents. STATE v. SURINDER [SHARMA, J.] 555 - The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: A ~ SHARMA, J. This special leave petition is directed against the order of the High Court dated 4.4.1991 disposing of a writ petition filed by the present two respondents. The entire judgment reads thus: -- "On the facts and circumstances
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.