LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing a writ petition concerning an ad-hoc appointment of a lecturer by relying on facts and pleadings from a different case.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Krishna Nand Shukla vs. Director of Higher Education Allahabad & Ors.
Judgment Date: 06 March 2019
Date of the Judgment: 06 March 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 202
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a court dismiss a case based on facts and pleadings from a different, albeit related, case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning the appointment of an ad-hoc lecturer. The core issue was whether the Allahabad High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition by referring to pleadings from another case. This judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the specific facts and pleadings of each case separately. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph.
Case Background
The appellant, Krishna Nand Shukla, claimed to be appointed as a Lecturer in Military Science at Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College on 02 August 1991. He stated that he applied for the position of Professor of Defence Studies in response to an advertisement published on 22 June 1991 in the Hindi Dainik newspaper. The University approved his appointment on an ad-hoc basis on 09 October 1991, based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 22 July 1991, for a period of six months or until a regular teacher was selected. This ad-hoc appointment was re-approved on 29 November 1991 until a regularly selected candidate took charge. The appellant contended that a post of Lecturer in Military Science was created on 09 February 1996. He received his salary until April 1998, after which payment was stopped due to a dispute within the College Management. Consequently, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 29473 of 1999 in the Allahabad High Court, seeking payment of his salary and non-interference in his role as Lecturer in Military Science. The High Court initially passed an interim order on 20 July 1999, following which the appellant’s salary was resumed.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22 June 1991 | Advertisement for Professor of Defence Studies published in Hindi Dainik. |
| 22 July 1991 | Selection Committee recommended Krishna Nand Shukla’s appointment. |
| 02 August 1991 | Appellant claims to be appointed on this date. |
| 09 October 1991 | University approved Krishna Nand Shukla’s ad-hoc appointment. |
| 29 November 1991 | Ad-hoc appointment re-approved. |
| 09 February 1996 | Post of Lecturer in Military Science created. |
| April 1998 | Appellant’s salary payment stopped. |
| 20 July 1999 | Interim order passed by High Court, salary payments resumed. |
| 06 October 2015 | High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 29473 of 1999. |
| 30 November 2015 | Supreme Court dismissed SLP but allowed review petition. |
| 09 March 2016 | High Court dismissed the review application. |
| 06 March 2019 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. |
Course of Proceedings
The Assistant Director of Education filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition, refuting the appellant’s claim. The counter-affidavit stated that the appellant’s claim had been rejected on 28 July 2005, and that the post of Military Science was created on 09 February 1996, whereas the appellant claimed to be appointed on 02 August 1991. The counter-affidavit also stated that the appointment was not made following due procedure, citing Section 60E and 60A(vi) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition on 06 October 2015, stating that the appointment was void as it was made without advertisement. The High Court referred to paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30 November 2015, with liberty to file a review petition in the High Court. The appellant filed a review application, which was dismissed by the High Court on 09 March 2016, through a non-speaking order.
Legal Framework
The counter-affidavit mentioned Section 60E and 60A(vi) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, to argue that the State had no liability to pay the appellant’s salary. However, the judgment does not provide the exact text or explanation of these sections. The judgment does not provide any further details on the legal framework.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court dismissed the writ petition by referring to pleadings in some other writ petition, not the pleadings in his own case.
- He contended that the counter-affidavit filed in his writ petition (Annexure-P14) did not contain paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i), which were referred to by the High Court in its judgment.
- He submitted that the High Court also erroneously referred to paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit, which was different from what was actually pleaded in his rejoinder-affidavit (Annexure-P15).
- The appellant stated that there was an advertisement for the post before his appointment (Annexure P-1).
- He also mentioned that he has filed a writ petition for regularization being Writ Petition No.1704(SB) of 2013 which is pending at Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
- The appellant argued that he had been working for more than two decades, and the High Court erred in dismissing his writ petition without considering the facts and pleadings of his case.
State’s Arguments:
- The State contended that the appointment of the appellant was not made following the procedure prescribed in law.
- The State argued that the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
| Submissions | Appellant’s Argument | State’s Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Counter-affidavit paragraphs | High Court incorrectly referred to paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of a counter-affidavit that did not exist in his case. | The appointment was not made as per procedure. |
| Rejoinder-affidavit paragraph | High Court incorrectly referred to paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit, which was different from what was actually pleaded in his rejoinder-affidavit. | High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. |
| Advertisement | Vacancy was advertised before his appointment. | |
| Regularization | He has filed a writ petition for regularization. | |
| Work Experience | He has been working for more than two decades. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition by referring to pleadings from a different case and without considering the pleadings in the writ petition of the appellant.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition by referring to pleadings from a different case and without considering the pleadings in the writ petition of the appellant. | Yes, the High Court erred. | The High Court referred to paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit that were not present in the appellant’s case. The High Court also dismissed the review application without addressing the specific errors pointed out by the appellant. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its judgment. The court primarily focused on the procedural errors made by the High Court in not considering the specific pleadings of the appellant’s case.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| High Court referred to incorrect pleadings. | The Court agreed that the High Court had referred to paragraphs from a counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit that were not part of the appellant’s case. |
| Review application was dismissed without considering errors. | The Court noted that the High Court dismissed the review application without addressing the specific errors pointed out by the appellant. |
| State’s argument that the appointment was not as per procedure. | The Court did not comment on the merits of this argument, as the matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh hearing. |
The Court did not use any authorities to make its decision.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural errors committed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the specific pleadings in the appellant’s writ petition instead of relying on pleadings from another case. The Court also noted that the High Court failed to address the errors pointed out in the review application. The Court’s concern was that the High Court did not decide the case based on the facts presented by the appellant.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Errors by High Court | 70% |
| Failure to consider specific pleadings | 20% |
| Dismissal of review application without addressing errors | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on ensuring procedural correctness and fairness in the adjudication process. The court did not delve into the merits of the case, but focused on the fact that the High Court did not consider the specific facts and pleadings of the appellant’s case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have looked into the facts of the appellant’s case and pleadings made therein. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court could not have decided the writ petition without doing so.
“From the records it appears that along with the Writ Petition No. 29473 of 1999 filed by the appellant another writ petition being No.29474 of 1999 (Dr. Triyogi Nath vs. Director of Higher Education & others) was connected and heard. It appears while deciding writ petition of the appellant the paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter- affidavit and paragraph 6 in Writ Petition No.29474 of 1999 has been referred to.”
“The High Court unless looks into the facts of the appellant’s case and pleadings made therein the writ petition could not have been decided.”
“We are of the view that ends of justice would be served in setting aside the judgment and order of the High court dated 06.10.2015 and 09.03.2016 and remitting the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh on the basis of the pleadings on the record.”
Key Takeaways
- The High Court must consider the specific pleadings and facts of each case separately.
- Review applications must be addressed by the court, and any errors pointed out must be considered.
- Courts cannot rely on pleadings from other cases to decide a matter.
- The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and correctness in the judicial process.
- The matter has been remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 06.10.2015 and 09.03.2016 and remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh on the basis of the pleadings on the record. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. The High Court was directed to decide the writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law. The Court also stated that the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary or claim for regularization as pending in W.P.No.1704(SB) of 2013 shall be dependent on the outcome of Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a court must consider the specific facts and pleadings of each case and cannot rely on pleadings from other cases. The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of procedural fairness and correctness in the judicial process. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of following the correct procedure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, which had dismissed a writ petition concerning an ad-hoc appointment of a lecturer. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred by referring to pleadings from a different case and by not addressing the errors pointed out in the review application. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the need for courts to consider the specific facts and pleadings of each case separately.