2011 (7) TMI 1381 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can direct the State Government to create a quasi-judicial forum.
2. Whether the High Court could exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain disputes raised by Shikshan Sevaks.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in holding that a Shikshan Sevak continues to be in employment if the Grievance Committee finds the termination illegal.
4. Whether the orders dated 2.5.2008 and 5.8.2008 of the High Court call for interference.

Summary:

Re: Question (i)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot direct the State Government to create a quasi-judicial forum. The constitution of judicial Tribunals must be governed by statutes or rules framed under the authority granted by the Constitution. The executive power of the State cannot be extended to creating judicial Tribunals or authorities exercising judicial powers and rendering judicial decisions. The High Court does not have legislative powers to create or constitute quasi-judicial Tribunals for adjudicating disputes.

Re: Question (ii)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain disputes relating to Shikshan Sevaks. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute. The High Court cannot, by a judicial order, nullify or supersede the express provisions of an enactment. The Grievance Committee created by an executive order can only be a fact-finding or recommending body, not a public quasi-judicial forum with binding decisions.

Re: Questions (iii) & (iv)

The Supreme Court held that even if the Grievance Committees were quasi-judicial tribunals, they cannot direct reinstatement or declare that a Shikshan Sevak continues to be in service. The direction of the High Court that a Shikshan Sevak is deemed to continue on the rolls of the management if the termination is found to be bad is erroneous. The decision of the Grievance Committee dated 28.7.2006 is not enforceable but only a recommendation for the Education Department to take appropriate action. The Shikshan Sevak can seek appropriate remedy if aggrieved by the termination.

Conclusion

The appeals were allowed, and the orders dated 2.5.2008 and 5.8.2008 were set aside. The order of the Grievance Committee was treated as a recommendation for the Education Department to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Shikshan Sevak can seek appropriate remedy if aggrieved by the termination.