2004 (10) TMI 628 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the legality of judgment of High Court - seeking appointment under the 1974 Rules - any suitable Class IV post under the Dying-in-Harness Rules - HELD THAT - This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to legality of judgment dismissing Special Appeal, interpretation of recruitment rules, compassionate appointment u/r Dying-in-Harness Rules, validity of interim order ignoring Government Order.

Interpretation of Recruitment Rules: Appellant's husband appointed as part-time tubewell operator while 1974 Rules were in operation, later 1996 Rules notified with cut-off date of 1.10.1986. Government order clarified benefit exclusion for dependents of part-time employees under 1974 Rules. Respondent sought appointment under 1974 Rules after husband's death, denied based on ineligibility. Single Judge directed consideration for compassionate appointment ignoring 1998 Government Order.

Validity of Interim Order: High Court directed Class IV appointment for respondent on humanitarian grounds, bypassing legal merits. Appellants argued unsustainability of order ignoring Government Order. Respondent's counsel defended actions as humanitarian, opposing interference with interim order upheld by Division Bench.

Judicial Analysis: Supreme Court found Single Judge and Division Bench's approach unsustainable, granting final relief as interim measure without justification. Criticized practice of granting interim orders giving principal relief based on prima facie case, neglecting balance of convenience and public interest. Cited precedents deprecating such practices. Set aside Single Judge's order, emphasizing need for proper adjudication without expressing opinion on case merits. Directed High Court to expedite final disposal within six months. Appeal allowed with no costs.