Smt. Jaya
Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors [1996] INSC 103 (19 January 1996)
Punchhi,
M.M.Punchhi, M.M.Venkataswami K. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1174 1996 SCALE (1)521
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
Heard
learned counsel.
The
appellant herein, is Smt. Jaya Devi. It appears that her services as Assistant
Teacher were terminated by the Directorate of Education, Bihar on February 19, 1990.
She
moved the High Court of Patna in Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1397 of 1990
which was allowed by S.N. Jha, J. sitting singly on November 28, 1991. It was
deduced that the government directions to terminate services of Assistant
Teachers were not meant to apply to the case of the appellant. She was thus put
back to service. The 7th respondent herein, Shri Shyama Kant Jha approached the
High Court in Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 13173 of 1993 seeking similar
relief as of the present appellant arraying the appellant as the 7th respondent
therein, possibly for support of his case. It came up for hearing before the
same learned Single Judge. The Learned Single Judge thought that he had wrongly
granted relief to the appellant. He dismissed the Writ Petition of Shri Shyama
Kant Jha and withdrew the relief granted to the appellant by specifically
owning that his earlier order in the case of appellant was not correct.
Since
the appellant had been reinstated pursuant to the orders of the learned Single
Judge, he went on to correct the detected mistake by ordering that her
appointment be cancelled as no further opportunity to her was necessary as she
had been heard by him in the matter laid before him. For the period she had
actually worked, the State was precluded by the learned Single Judge from
recovering salary and allowances already paid to her. This order is under
challenge in this appeal.
It is
not denied that a judicial order passed by a court can be reviewed or re-called
by the court after observing the legal procedure as by law devised permitting a
review or a re-call. In the instant case, the High Court did not follow that
procedure. Rather, in a totally distinct proceeding where the appellant was
neither a necessary nor proper party, where no relief was claimed against her,
she was caught and deprived of the benefit she derived in her Writ Petition. We
are not, for the moment, commenting on the merit of the matter, but only to the
method adopted by the learned Single Judge in nullifying his order in favour of
the appellant in proceedings in which she had no interest at all.
Mr.
B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, on the strength of the two
decisions of this Court in Chandra Bansi Singh and Others etc. vs. State of
Bihar and others etc. [1985 (1) SCR 579 (583)] and State of Rajasthan vs. Gurcharandas
Chadha [1980(1) SCC 250 ] goes to contend that if the High Court has corrected
errors, even in exercise of powers which it did not have, then this Court
should not cause any interference thereto in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution. As said before, we are not commenting on the
merit of the matter, as to whether the order passed by the High Court in favour
of the appellant in the first instance was correct or not. We have strong
reservation in the manner in which the effect of the order was withdrawn in
distinct proceedings. The appellant was not put to specific notice that the
order in her favour was to be re-called for grounds stated. We cannot uphold
such order of the High Court to the extent which affects the appellant. We,
therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court to
the extent it affects the appellant. The ill-effect of the same stands
withdrawn in so far as the appellant is concerned. The appellant shall get her
costs too.
Back
Pages: 1 2