THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus BIJAY KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 14-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 888 
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
v. 
BIJAY KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1270 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 14, 2008 
(S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Termination of services of ad-hoc employees - Claims 
C in subsequent appointments - Review jurisdiction of High 
Court - Held: Respondent-employees did not question order 
terminating their ad-hoc services - Employees other than 
respondents questioning order of termination of services 
approached upto Supreme Court, when Supreme· Court in 
D exercise of its power u/A. 142 of the Constitution of India 
directed the State authorities to provide certain relaxation to 
the incumbents in future appointments - Order of the Supreme 
Court kept confined to appellants thereof - High Court, in the 
petition filed later, could not grant such benefit to others -
E Constitution confers special jurisdiction on Supreme Court in 
terms of Article 142 of the Constitution - No s_uch power 
specifically conferred on High Court- Order of Supreme Court 
providing relaxation attained finality- Hence High Court could 
not issue the impugned direction - Constitution of India, 1950 
F - Article 142 - Power of Judicial Review. 
Equality in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
- Duty of the Courts in protecting rights of citizens in the matter 
of public appointments - Discussed. 
G 
Judicial Review - Scope of in the context of Article 142 
of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
Respondents were appointed as Technical 
Assistants on ad hoc basis in a project of Animal 
Husbandry of the Government of Bihar. In the year 1996, 
H 
888 
t 
_,, 
I 
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. v. BIJAY KUMAR 
889 
& ORS. 
when 'Fodder Scam' came to light, the State Government A 
had declared all unauthorized appointments as illegal. 
Pursuant thereto, the services of the respondents were 
terminated. They filed writ petitions before the High Court, 
which were dismissed by the High Court. Letters Patent 
Appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed by B 
the High Court directing that relaxation in respect of age 
·~ -.\ · 
and weightage of incumbents could be considered in the 
future appointment. Hence the present appeal. 
Earlier, some of the aggrieved employees 
approached this Court, when this Court directed that ad C 
hoc appointees have no right to claim regularization; that 
the State Government to fill up the vacancies of Technical 
Assistants in the project; to constitute a Selection 
Committee; and that the Committee shall consider the 
case of eligible aggrieved employees for relaxation of age, D 
weightage over outsiders in terms of High Court's 
direction. 
Appellant contended that the direction of the High 
Court, if implemented, would run contrary to and 
inconsistent with the directions contained in earlier E 
orders of this Court; that since this Court having directed 
not to treat the relaxation as directed to be given to 
incumbents as one time exercise and not to be followed 
as precedent, the directions issued by the High Court are 
clearly violative thereof. 
F 
Respondents submitted that one time exercise 
directed to be carried out by this Court had not been fully 
complied with and, thus, the High Court was entitled to 
pass the impugned order; that this Court, in any event, in G 
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the 
Constitution of India, can issue necessary directions so 
as to extend the benefits also to those who had not 
approached this Court earlier; and that advertisement 
having been issued in July 2006 and the impugned order H 
-+ 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A having been passed by the High Court in June 2006 and 
·> 
furthermore in view of the fact that the respondents have 
appeared in the examination, this Court should not 
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of 
the Constitution of India. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Respondents were appointed in 1992. 
. +. v 
They were removed from service in 1997. They did not 
question the said orders of termination. However, they 
c had questioned the orders of their termination from service 
before the High Court. This Court in its order dated 
23.7.2003, in that matter, although opined that they had 
no right to continue in service, issued some directions 
evidently in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the 
D Constitution of India. The said order was to be kept 
confined only to the appellants thereof, 

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