Date of the Judgment: July 27, 2017
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed an appeal regarding the appointment of a professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. The core issue revolved around the appointment of the appellant as Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gyneacology in the Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. This case was ultimately dismissed as both the appellant and the contesting respondent had retired from service, rendering the matter practically moot. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi.
Case Background
The case originated from a dispute regarding the appointment of the appellant, Sushma Pandey, as a Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. The contesting respondent, Sheela Sharma, was also involved in this dispute. The matter reached the Supreme Court after an order passed by the Patna High Court in L.P.A No.1323 of 1998.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Patna High Court order in L.P.A No.1323. |
| July 27, 2017 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The judgment mentions that the matter reached the Supreme Court after an order passed by the Patna High Court in L.P.A No.1323 of 1998. However, the details of the High Court proceedings are not mentioned in the judgment.
Legal Framework
The judgment does not specify any particular legal provisions or statutes that were considered by the Court. The case primarily revolved around the factual aspect of the retirement of the parties involved.
Arguments
The judgment does not detail the specific arguments made by either party. However, it can be inferred that the appellant was contesting the order of the Patna High Court regarding her appointment as Professor, while the respondent was likely defending the High Court’s order. The court did not delve into the merits of the case due to the retirement of the parties.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues for consideration. The primary reason for the dismissal was the retirement of both the appellant and the contesting respondent, which rendered the matter practically infructuous.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Appointment of Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. | The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as both the appellant and the contesting respondent had retired from service. |
Authorities
The judgment does not cite any authorities or legal precedents. The decision was based on the factual circumstance of the parties’ retirement.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for appointment as Professor. | The Court did not address the merits of the claim due to the appellant’s retirement. |
| Respondent’s defense of the High Court order. | The Court did not address the merits of the defense due to the respondent’s retirement. |
The Supreme Court did not use any authorities in the reasoning for resolving the issue.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the retirement of both the appellant and the contesting respondent. This made the matter practically moot, as no effective relief could be granted to either party. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case due to this development.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Retirement of Parties | 100% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 100% |
| Law | 0% |
Appellant and Respondent are Retired
Matter Becomes Moot
Appeal is Dismissed
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to the retirement of both parties.
- ✓ The judgment highlights that courts may not adjudicate matters that have become infructuous due to subsequent events.
- ✓ This case serves as an example of how real-world circumstances can render legal disputes moot.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
No specific amendments were analysed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment does not establish any new legal principles or change existing laws. It simply applies the principle that courts generally do not adjudicate moot matters.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sushma Pandey against Sheela Sharma and others, concerning the appointment of a professor at Patliputra Medical College. The dismissal was based on the fact that both the appellant and the contesting respondent had retired from service, rendering the matter practically moot.