Supreme Court Upholds Abolishment of Media Prabhari Post: State of U.P. vs. Diwakar Khare (2008)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 03, 2008

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J.

Can a High Court grant interim relief allowing someone to continue in a post that has already been abolished by the government? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Diwakar Khare. The core issue revolved around an interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which allowed the respondent, Diwakar Khare, to continue in the position of Media Prabhari, even after the State Government had abolished the post. This appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the validity of that interim order.

The bench comprised Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Aftab Alam. The judgment was delivered to address whether the High Court’s interim relief was justified given the State Government’s decision to abolish the post in question.

Case Background

The case originated from an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which granted interim relief to Diwakar Khare, permitting him to continue as Media Prabhari. However, prior to this interim order, the State Government had already abolished the post of Media Prabhari on June 18, 2008. The State of Uttar Pradesh, as the appellant, contested the High Court’s decision, arguing that the interim relief was unsustainable since the very post in question no longer existed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, initially granted interim relief to the Respondent, allowing him to continue in the post of Media Prabhari. This order was passed despite the State Government’s prior decision to abolish the post. Aggrieved by the interim orders dated June 20, 2008, and August 29, 2008, the State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The primary legal consideration in this case revolves around the permissibility of granting interim relief for a post that has already been abolished by the competent authority. While the specific sections or rules are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, the implicit legal principle is that an interim order cannot create or continue a position that has been officially terminated.

Arguments

Appellant (State of U.P.):

• ✓ The State Government had abolished the post of Media Prabhari on June 18, 2008, prior to the High Court granting interim relief.
• ✓ Granting interim relief to continue the Respondent in a non-existent post is legally untenable.

Respondent (Diwakar Khare):

• ✓ The provided text does not contain the arguments made by the respondent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting interim relief to the Respondent, allowing him to continue in the post of Media Prabhari, after the State Government had already abolished the post.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The provided text does not explicitly mention any specific cases or legal provisions that were relied upon by the court. The decision is primarily based on the principle that an interim order cannot sustain a post that has already been abolished.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The provided text does not explicitly mention any specific cases or legal provisions that were relied upon by the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the sequence of events: the abolition of the post by the State Government prior to the High Court granting interim relief. The Court emphasized that once the post was abolished, there was no legal basis for the High Court to issue an order that effectively reinstated it, even temporarily.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: the High Court’s interim order was unsustainable because it pertained to a post that no longer existed. This decision underscores the principle that judicial orders cannot create or revive positions that have been validly abolished by the executive branch.

“Since the post itself has been abolished by the State Government before the interim order was granted, we are of the view that the interim relief to writ petitioner/respondent at this stage could at all be given i.e. after abolition of the said post.”

“If the post has already been abolished, question of continuance by the writ petitioner/respondent in the said post already abolished cannot arise at all.”

“That being the position, we set aside the interim orders granted by the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Interim relief cannot be granted to continue a person in a post that has already been abolished by the government.
• ✓ The judiciary respects the executive’s decision to abolish posts, provided it is done legally and in good faith.
• ✓ Courts must consider the factual matrix and sequence of events before granting interim orders.

Directions

The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that disciplinary proceedings, if any, started against the respondent, shall stand withdrawn if the writ petitioner/respondent joins the service as Additional District Information Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh within two weeks from the date of the order. The Contempt Proceedings, if any, shall remain stayed till final disposal of the writ petition.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an interim order cannot be issued to allow a person to continue in a post that has already been abolished by the competent authority. This reinforces the principle that judicial orders must align with the existing legal and factual framework.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the interim orders of the High Court. The Court held that granting interim relief to continue the Respondent in a post that had already been abolished was legally untenable. The decision underscores the importance of the sequence of events and the respect for the executive’s decision to abolish posts.