- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kishore K. Pati v. Distt. Inspector Of Schools, Midnapore
Factual and Procedural Background
The controversy concerns recruitment to a post for which the appellant’s name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, by orders dated 16-11-1998 and 19-12-1998, nevertheless directed the authorities to permit both the appellant and Respondent 7 to participate in the interview. Pursuant to those orders the appellant was found suitable and was appointed, while Respondent 7 was found unsuitable.
The Single Judge’s orders were not challenged, and therefore attained finality. In a subsequent writ appeal filed by Respondent 7, a Division Bench annulled the appellant’s appointment solely on the ground that his candidature had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court erred in annulling the appellant’s appointment merely because his name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, despite the earlier unchallenged orders of the learned Single Judge permitting his interview.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent 7's Arguments
- Contended that several issues raised in his writ appeal were left unanswered by the Division Bench.
- Urged the Supreme Court to remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.
The opinion does not detail the appellant’s specific arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Single Judge’s directions permitting the appellant and Respondent 7 to be interviewed—despite the absence of Employment Exchange sponsorship—were never appealed and therefore had attained finality. Because the interviews and subsequent selection of the appellant occurred strictly in compliance with those final orders, the Division Bench lacked authority to revisit the issue. The Court found the Single Judge’s approach legally sound and held that the Division Bench’s annulment of the appellant’s appointment was without jurisdiction.
Regarding Respondent 7’s plea for remand, the Court examined both the counter-affidavit and the High Court’s judgment and concluded that all contentions had in fact been addressed. Consequently, a remand was unnecessary.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside.
Direct Implications: The appellant’s appointment stands reinstated, and he is entitled to salary from the date of joining pursuant to the Single Judge’s orders. No broader legal precedent was created beyond reaffirming the finality of unchallenged judicial orders.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was justified in annulling the recruitment in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that in the absence of any sponsoring by the employment exchange, the petitioner could not have at all been considered for the post in question.
3. It transpires that the learned Single Judge by orders dated 16-11-1998 and 19-12-1998 directed the authorities concerned to consider the case of the present appellant as well as Respondent 7 in interview notwithstanding the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. This view of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant and Respondent 7 did appear in the interview and though the appellant was found suitable, yet Respondent 7 was found unsuitable. The orders of the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to allow the appellant and Respondent 7 to be interviewed were not assailed and thus became final. In that view of the matter, in the second round of litigation, the Division Bench was totally in error to annul the appointment made in favour of the appellant after interviewing him pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, which has attained finality, is without jurisdiction and we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench was in error in setting aside the appointment of the appellant.
4. Mr Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 7 contended that in the writ appeal filed by him before the Division Bench, he has raised several questions which have not been answered and therefore it would be appropriate for this Court to remit the matter to the Division Bench for redisposal. On going through the counter-affidavit and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any contention raised not being answered by the Division Bench. On the other hand, the Division Bench has disposed of the appeal on the ground that the consideration of the case of the appellant and Respondent 7 whose case has not been sponsored by the employment exchange is not sustainable in law and as we have said earlier, the said view is not correct. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and allow this appeal.
5. Needless to mention that the appellant would be entitled to the salary from the date he joined pursuant to the orders passed in his favour.
6. This appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Alert