Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 375 (AP)

K. Malakondaiah v. Government Of A. P.

2001-04-06

S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO

body2001
S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) BOTH the matters arise out of a common order and therefore they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in these applications is as to whether the Tribunal committed an illegality in not following its earlier decision. The petitioner herein filed an Original Applications before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal seeking similar directions passed by it in oa No. 5623 of 1993 and batch. Several other cases were also filed. By reason of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal considered the cases on merits and held that the A. P. Public Service Commission is justified in treating the petitioner as non-local candidate. However, from the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 5623 of 1993 and batch, it appears, that it was directed:"we direct that if the applicants file copies of documents to satisfy the criteria for being a local candidate, the name of the applicants should be sent if anyone lower to them in the ranking list the relevant category have been sent for the post of Junior Inspector of Co-operative societies/vdo according to the option given by them. The appointing authority will give them the appointment in preference to those who obtained lower marks. Even after service of notice, there is no response from the Secretary, gad. There will be a direction that the secretary, GAD, will examine the scheme of clubbing the recruitment to posts keeping in view the provisions of the presidential Order and the need for applying the reservations only at the stage of appointment and not at the stage of selection. This should be done within two months of the date of receipt of the order. " ( 3 ) HAVING regard to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Sudhir kumar Jaiswal, (1994) 4 SCC 212 and cst v. Pine Chemicals Limited, (1995) 1 scc 58 , we are of the opinion that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench is binding upon another co-ordinate Bench. If one co-ordinate Bench differs with the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench, it may refer the same to a larger Bench. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in SI Rooplal v. LT. If one co-ordinate Bench differs with the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench, it may refer the same to a larger Bench. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in SI Rooplal v. LT. Governor Through Chief Secretary, delhi, wherein the Apex Court has held:"at the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Co-ordinate bench of the same Tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Co-ordinate bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Co-ordinate benches on the same point could nave been avoided. It is not as if the latter bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of Justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate Court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A co-ordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another bench. It can only refer it to a larger bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. " ( 4 ) IN view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained which are accordingly set aside and the matters are remitted to the learned tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the afore mentioned decision. ( 5 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.