Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3. Issuance of notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.
The questions involved in this writ petition and the questions that were raised, considered and answered by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17 December 2015 in Writ Petition No. 655 (S/S) of 2014 are similar. The concluding paragraph of the judgment reads thus:
"For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the view of the learned Single Judge in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) cannot be upheld as laying down the correct position in law. The view of the learned Single Judge shall stand, accordingly, overruled. The judgment in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is upheld subject to the principles which, we have enunciated in this judgment.
The second issue which has been referred for decision before the Division Bench is the scope of Section 16-E (11) when read in the context of Sections 16, 22, 32 and 33-E of the Act of 1982. We have already dealt with the interpretation of these provisions in the course of the judgment.
The reference to the Division Bench shall stand answered in the aforesaid terms. The record of these proceedings shall now be remitted back to the learned Single Judge, according to roster, for disposal in the light of the questions answered."
It is not in dispute that the writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment, which is also under challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 (arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 15272 of 2016). The Supreme Court, on 22 August 2016, while entertaining the S.L.P., granted leave and also stay of operation of the impugned judgment [dated 17 December 2015 in Writ Petition No. 655(S/S) of 2014] until further orders. In this view of the matter, counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of this writ petition by the following order:
(1) The petition also stand disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17 December 2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 655 (S/S) of 2014, subject to outcome of Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 pending before the Supreme Court and/or modification of interim order dated 22 August 2016, if any. In other words, if Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 is allowed, counsel for the respondents submit that they shall give all benefits to the petitioner also in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, unless there is any other legal impediment and if any aspect is not covered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17 December 2015. Subject to above, parties have agreed for allowing the interim order passed in writ petition protecting the interests of the petitioner, to remain operative till disposal of Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 pending before the Supreme Court.
(2) In view of the above, it is needless to mention that the respondents shall allow the petitioner to continue to work on the post, if he is working till today, and shall extend all benefits of interim order, if any, till disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court, unless there is any other legal impediment and if any aspect is not covered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17 December 2015.
(3) It is open to the respondents to take appropriate decision/action after disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court subject to the order/judgment passed therein.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that when the matter is finally set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court, liberty be provided to the Competent Authorities to examine the validity of the appointment of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, thereafter.
It is needless to say that such liberty is always with the Competent Authorities to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after verifying the validity of the appointment and other factors in respect of appointment of the incumbents.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 prabhat