Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 21 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. PAWAN KUMAR RAJPUT

2005-01-07

C.K.THAKKER, RUMA PAL

body2005
JUDGMENT Ruma Pal, J. :- Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following order. The subject matter of the dispute in this special leave petition is an interim order passed by the High Court by which it has, inter alia, stayed the operation of the rules framed by the State Government regarding recruitment of lecturers. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner State, the High Court should not /have entertained the petition because of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 1997(3) SCC 261 and in particular paragraph 99 thereof. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the litigation was really, in the nature of public interest although the petitioners were interested themselves in the outcome of the litigation. They have relied upon the decision in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitender Kumar Mishra, reported in 1998(7) SCC 275 in this context. It appears to us from the nature of the dispute that the litigation could not be said to be a public interest litigation as the writ petitioners were prosecuting the litigation in their own interest. It would, therefore, be proper for the High Court to have directed the petitioners to approach the State Administrative Tribunal, in view of the categoric directive of this Court in L. Chandra Kumars case. 2. In the circumstances, we dispose of the special leave petition by directing the interim order granted by the High Court to continue for a period of 8 weeks. The Civil Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2004, Pawan Kumar Rajpur and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh is transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal. The continuation of the interim order passed by us today will be subject to any order that will be passed by the State Administrative Tribunal which will exercise its discretion uninhibited by any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. We make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge in the writ petition. 3. The respondents will be at liberty to pray for continuation of the interim order before the Tribunal. 4. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.