Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 898 (GAU)

Abdul Motin v. State of Assam

2009-12-14

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The matters pertain to selection for the posts of Principal and Superintendent of Arabic College/Title Madrassa and Senior Madrassa (Provincialised). In W.P.(C) No. 113/09 ('the first writ petition') and W.P.(C) No. 364/09 ('the second writ petition'), the petitioners have also incidentally challenged the very constitution of the Selection Board and the State Madrassa Education Board. In W.P.(C) No. 396/09 ('the third writ petition'), the challenge to the selection made is on ground of violation of the provisions of Assam Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978. In W.P.(C) No. 1726/09 ('the fourth writ petition') the two writ petitioners while supporting the select lists in question and the appointment orders issued pursuant thereto, have prayed for a direction towards handing over the charge of the posts of the Superintendent to the petitioners. All the writ petitions being on the same central issue of validity or otherwise of the selection of the candidates for the posts of Principal and Superintendent and the matters incidental thereto, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioners in the first writ petition are the Assistant Teachers presently holding the charge of the Superintendent in their respective institutions. The single petitioner in the second writ petition is a Lecturer of Rahmatganj Arabi College, Dhubri, Assam. The petitioners in the third writ petition are M.A. in Arabic with teaching experience to their credit. Likewise, the petitioners in the fourth writ petition are the Principal of their respective institutions. As noted above, while in the first three writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the very selection and appointment of the private respondents for the posts of Superintendent, Principal, in the fourth writ petition the two writ petitioners who are the selected candidates have prayed for a direction towards handing over the charge of regular post pursuant to such selection. 3. As narrated in the first two writ petitions, the Madrassa Education in the State of Assam is governed by the notification dated 9.8.1954 issued by the Government of Assam in the Department of Education. A set of rules was published by the Government providing for constitution of Assam State Madrassa Board for management and control of Madrassa Education in the State in general and in particular High Madrassa and Senior Madrassa. A set of rules was published by the Government providing for constitution of Assam State Madrassa Board for management and control of Madrassa Education in the State in general and in particular High Madrassa and Senior Madrassa. The constitution of the Board as indicated in the writ petitions is as follows: 4. By Annexure-C notification dated 12.3.2008 issued by the Government of Assam in the Education (Secondary) Department reconstituted the Board with 13 members which according to the petitioner is in complete violation of Rule 2 of the aforesaid notification dated 9.8.1954. It is the case of the petitioners that it is only the Directorate of Public Instruction (DPI) who should be the President of the Board Ex-officio, but in the newly constituted Board vide notification dated 12.3.2008 Shri Wazed Ali Choudhury, Ex-Minister of the Government of Assam and a member of a political party was appointed as the Chairman. Further case of the petitioners is that the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam and the Deputy Director of Madrassa, Assam could not have been nominated as the Member and Member Secretary respectively in terms of the aforesaid Rules. Thus, according to the petitioners, the very constitution of the Board is illegal and accordingly the said notification dated 12.3.2008 is liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. By Annexure-D letter dated 19.4.2008 issued by the Government of Assam in the Education Department approval was accorded to the proposal sent by the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam for filling up 323 numbers of posts all over the State including the posts of Principal and Superintendent of Arabic Colleges and Title Madrassas against which the petitioners have been working as in-charge Superintendents. It is the stand of the petitioners that the approval so accorded is silent regarding the procedure to be followed by the Directorate of Madrassa Education, Assam for filling up the posts. It is the further stand of the petitioners that the Department of Finance accorded their approval vide No. FSI. 437/07 dated 1.3.2008 only after the Department of Education in their communication stated that the posts of the Head of the aforesaid institutions would be filled up only by promotion and not by fresh recruitment. According to the petitioners, in absence of any recruitment Rules such approval has no meaning in the eye of law. 6. 437/07 dated 1.3.2008 only after the Department of Education in their communication stated that the posts of the Head of the aforesaid institutions would be filled up only by promotion and not by fresh recruitment. According to the petitioners, in absence of any recruitment Rules such approval has no meaning in the eye of law. 6. After the aforesaid approval the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam by his Annexure-E letter dated 3.6.2008 instructed/directed the Principals/Superintendents of the Arabic Colleges, Title Madrassas, Senior Madrassas of the State to initiate selection process for filling up vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in their respective institutions as per the provisions of the Act. 7. By Annexure-F notification dated 18.11.2008, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Secondary) Department constituted the State Selection Board in which the Chairman of the said Madrassa Education Board was made the Chairman. It is the stand of the petitioner that the very induction of the Chairman to the State Madrassa Education Board being illegal, his nomination as the Chairman of the State Selection Board is also illegal. 8. After the aforesaid developments, Annexure-G advertisement dated 30.11.2008 was published in the local newspaper inviting applications from the candidates to fill up 6 (six) posts of Principal in Provincialised Title Madrassa and Arabic College and 30 (thirty) posts of Superintendents in Provincialised Senior Madrassa. Pursuant to such notification, the Deputy Director of Madrassa, Assam by his letter dated 01,12.2008 apprised about the said advertisement to all the Principals of Arabic Colleges/Title Madrassas (Provincialised) and the Superintendents of all Senior Madrassas (Provincialised). 9. In the advertisement minimum qualification for the post of Principal was prescribed as M.M. (Mumtazul Muhaddithin) with at least 15 years of teaching experience and for the post of Superintendent prescription was M.M. (Mumtazul Muhaddithin) with minimum 10 years teaching experience. According to the petitioners, the said notification was issued by the Principal Secretary without any approval from the Government and without providing for any provision of reservation for OBC/MOBC/SC/ST/Physically Handicapped, etc. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 30.11.2008 altogether 66 candidates applied for the posts of Principal and 175 candidates applied for the post of Superintendent. According to the petitioners, the said notification was issued by the Principal Secretary without any approval from the Government and without providing for any provision of reservation for OBC/MOBC/SC/ST/Physically Handicapped, etc. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 30.11.2008 altogether 66 candidates applied for the posts of Principal and 175 candidates applied for the post of Superintendent. It is the plea of the petitioners that they had also applied as a measure of abundant precaution and that they were ignorant about the illegality committed in the entire episode about, which mention has been made above. Further plea of the petitioners is that they had appear in the interview on 22.12.2008 for the post of Superintendent under compulsion as per schedule. According to the petitioners apart from verification of the documents, they were asked to recite a 'hadith' from the book of "Miskatsh Sharif". No questions were asked to them by the members of the Selection Board. The petitioners have further pleaded that though the Selection Board was constituted with 7 (seven) members including the Chairman and the Member Secretary, but at the time of interview only 4 (four) members were present. 11. In paragraph-16 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the Director of Madrassa Education in collaboration with the Member Secretary of the Selection Board without any formal permission/prior approval from the Government and without any authority started issuing appointment letters to various purported selected candidates. On enquiry, the petitioners could come to know that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and interview, a select list was published on 30.12.2008 in which the petitioners did not figure. 12. In paragraph-19 of the writ petition, the petitioners have referred to the earlier advertisement dated 8/14.1.1999 by which applications were invited from the candidates for filling up posts of Principal and Superintendent in the aforementioned institutions. The said advertisement was challenged by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2841/1999 which was disposed of by order dated 22.3.2007. In the said order the court taking a note of the aforesaid notification dated 9.8.1954, set aside and quashed the Board and directed the State Government to constitute the said Selection Board in accordance with law and then only to make appointment. In the said order the court taking a note of the aforesaid notification dated 9.8.1954, set aside and quashed the Board and directed the State Government to constitute the said Selection Board in accordance with law and then only to make appointment. It is the stand of the petitioners that since the present existing State Madrassa Education Board has been illegally constituted in violation of the aforesaid notification dated 9.8.1954 and the rules framed thereunder, the entire selection process is vitiated and, therefore, all actions pursuant to such constitution of the Board are liable to be interfered with. 13. In the third writ petition, there are two writ petitioners out of which the petitioner No. 1 died on 11.3.2009 and accordingly his name has been deleted by order dated 4.6.2009. Thus, it is the petitioner No. 2 who remains in the proceeding as the lone petitioner. It is his case that he being a member of 'Manual' community which is recognized as OBC, is entitled to get reservation in the matter of appointment as per the provisions of Assam Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978. The petitioner has referred to letters dated 3.6.2008 and 13.8.2001 (Annexures-7 and 8) respectively so as to contend that the reserved category candidates are entitled to claim reservation in the matter of appointment and, thus, the petitioner being a member of OBC, is also entitled to reservation. Annexures-7 and 8 letters dated 3.6.2008 and 13.8.2001 were issued emphasizing the need for providing reservation in appointments including the appointment in Arabic Colleges, Title Madrassas and Senior Madrassas of the State. It is the grievance of the petitioner that contrary to expectation that he would be considered as a reserved category candidate, no such reservation was provided and the selection was done favouring only the general category candidates. Further stand of the petitioner is that even back log vacancies were not cleared and, thus, there was violation of the reservation roster. 14. As noted above, in the fourth writ petition the two writ petitioners who are the selected candidates pursuant to the impugned selection in the first three writ petitions, have prayed for a direction towards materialization of their appointments as Superintendent. 15. A number of affidavits have been filed. 14. As noted above, in the fourth writ petition the two writ petitioners who are the selected candidates pursuant to the impugned selection in the first three writ petitions, have prayed for a direction towards materialization of their appointments as Superintendent. 15. A number of affidavits have been filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6, i.e., the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, it has been stated that the aforesaid notification and Rules of 1954 and 1955 had been amended vide notification dated 2.9.1972 whereby it was provided that the President of Madrassa Education, Assam is to be nominated by the State Government and not the DPI who was earlier nominated as Ex-officio President. As per the amended Rules, the constitution of the Board is as follows: 16. In the affidavit, the respondent No. 6 has also indicated the names of the President/Chairman of the Board who held the offices after the amendment of 1972. None of the said persons were holders of the post of DPI. Some of them were Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries/MLAs, etc. 17. Further stand in the affidavit is that the State Government has bifurcated the office of the DPI into three Directorates, namely, (1) Directorate of Elementary Education, (2) Directorate of Secondary Education and (3) Directorate of Higher Education. In 2005 vide notification dated 24.10.2005 a new Directorate, namely Directorate of Madrassa Education was created with the nomination of Director of Madrassa Education as the Member of the said Madrassa Board in place of DPI. 18. As regards to other members, it has been stated that the Government had upgraded the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools for Muslim Education to the post of Deputy Director of Madrassa Education vide Government letter No. 09.01.1984 and after this upgradation the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education is the Ex-officio Secretary of the State of Madrassa Board. As regards the qualification, etc., for the post of Principal and Superintendent, it is the stand of the respondent No. 6 that as the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995 is silent regarding the procedure of filling up the post, the Selection Board constituted as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Act in its meeting held on 27.11.2008 decided on the methodology of recruitment and laid down the guidelines/criteria for selection of Principal and Superintendent as reflected in the advertisement. 19. 19. Some of the private respondents have also filed their counter affidavits justifying the selection and constitution of the Madrassa Education Board and the Selection Board and also the selection conducted by the said Selection Board and the offer of appointments made thereafter. The respondent No. 1 in its affidavit has also justified the entire action towards construction of the Madrassa Education Board and the Selection Board and all consequential action undertaken by the said Boards. 20. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, while reiterating the stand in the writ petitions they have also stated about minority status of the institutions and lack of jurisdiction of the Governmental authorities over such institutions. 21. I have heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioners and so also Mr. A.M. Borbhuyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the fourth writ petition. I have also heard Mr. A.M. Majumdar, Mr. HRA Choudhury and Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel and so also Mr. B. Singha, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior standing Counsel, Education Department while made submissions on behalf of the Government of Assam in the Education Department, Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned addl. senior Government advocate made submissions on behalf of the other State respondents. 22. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant records, I record my findings and conclusions as follows: 23. Both Mr. A.M. Majumdar and Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents at the very outset raised the preliminary objection of the very maintainability of the writ petitions. Both of them argued that the petitioners having participated in the selection process without any objection and being unsuccessful, cannot now turn around the selection process so as to question the very selection of the private respondents. Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel additionally argued that the writ petition is not maintainable in absence of necessary parties. Both of them argued that the petitioners having participated in the selection process without any objection and being unsuccessful, cannot now turn around the selection process so as to question the very selection of the private respondents. Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel additionally argued that the writ petition is not maintainable in absence of necessary parties. It was argued that since the petitioners have challenged the very constitution of the Madrassa Education Board and the Selection Board, it was incumbent on their part to implead all the members of the said Boards and the petitioners having not done so, the writ court will not accept the contentions of the petitioners so as to set at naught the said two selection Boards without hearing the members thereof. In this connection, they have placed reliance on the four decisions, namely (1) Truvedi Himansu Ghanshyambhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (2007) 8 SCC 644 , (2) K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 395 , (3) Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 and (4) Dr. Arun Deka and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. 2006 (3) GLT 107. 24. Countering the above arguments, Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj (1997) 9 SCC 527 . 25. In the aforesaid decisions on which the learned Counsel for the private respondents have placed reliance, it has been held that the petitioners involved having participated in the selection process are estopped from questioning the selection inasmuch as they took a chance for favourable consideration and it was only when they failed to qualify, questioned the selection process and the selection. In Rajkumar (supra) dealing with a similar question, the Apex Court nullified the same noticing the fact that the authority had committed glaring illegality in the procedure and method of selection. In the said case it was held that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to such fact situation. 26. As noted above, the Madrassa Education Board constituted vide impugned Annexure-C notification dated 12.3.2008 consists of 13 members. Similarly Annexure-F notification dated 18.11.2008 by which the Selection Board was constituted consists of 7 members. In the writ petition the respective Chairman of the Boards are party respondents, but the other members are not. 26. As noted above, the Madrassa Education Board constituted vide impugned Annexure-C notification dated 12.3.2008 consists of 13 members. Similarly Annexure-F notification dated 18.11.2008 by which the Selection Board was constituted consists of 7 members. In the writ petition the respective Chairman of the Boards are party respondents, but the other members are not. It is in this context, it was argued that the writ petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as in the event of any interference with the said two notifications, the members who are not party respondents will also be affected. On the other hand, it was the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the Chairman of the respective Boards are party respondents, the petitions cannot be said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties even in absence of other respondents. 27. As regards the constitution of the Madrassa Education Board, the petitioners have placed reliance on the earlier constitution as per the notifications of 1954 and 1955 Rules in terms of which the Director of Public Instruction is the Ex-officio President. It has been brought on record that in due course the Directorate of Public Instruction was bifurcated to the Directorate of Higher, Secondary and Elementary Education and subsequently a new Directorate, i.e. Directorate of Madrassa Education was also created. It has also been brought on record that as per the amended Rules, 1972, the Chairman/President is to be nominated by the State Government and accordingly, the present Chairman was nominated by the Government. As regards the other members, it is on record that the earlier offices like Senior Inspector of Schools, Assistant Inspector of Schools, etc., were substituted by other offices and accordingly the members thereof were made the members of the Board. It was pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that although the earlier offices/nomenclature were replaced by new names, but in absence of amendment of Rules to that effect, the holders of the said new offices could not have been made the members of the Boards. Such an argument cannot find favour inasmuch as even in absence of any amendment to the Rules showing the names of the new offices, the fact remains that the earlier offices/nomenclatures thereof have been abolished with the substitution of the new names. Such an argument cannot find favour inasmuch as even in absence of any amendment to the Rules showing the names of the new offices, the fact remains that the earlier offices/nomenclatures thereof have been abolished with the substitution of the new names. Thus, in place of the names of earlier offices if the new names are inducted and the incumbents thereof are made members of the Boards, no fault can be attributed to the official respondents. 28. As regards to the plea of the petitioners that the interview was not conducted in a proper manner and that they were not put any questions relating to the purpose of selection, the writ court cannot make a roving enquiry into the veracity or otherwise on such contentions. The writ court also does not have expertise to find out as to whether the Selection Board duly conducted the selection or not. 29. This now leads us to the issue raised in the third writ petition regarding non-making of any provision for reservation which needless to say includes reservation both horizontal and vertical. This particular plea has also been raised in the first two writ petitions. While Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned standing Counsel, Education Department contended that there cannot be any reservation in minority institutions, Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the third writ petition upon a reference to the Government letters dated 3.6.2008 and 13.8.2001 circulated under Memo dated 15.10.2001, contended that such reservations are applicable even in the institutions with which the present proceeding is concerned. 30. The stand of Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned standing Counsel, Education Department which he raised with the support of the decision reported in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 , runs counter to the aforesaid Government letters and also the counter affidavits filed by the Deputy Director Madrassa Education in which contradictory submissions have been made. While in some places the Deputy Director has stated that no reservation can be applied in Madrassas, but in some places it has been stated that the aforesaid letter dated 3.6.2008 is meant for the posts of Assistant Teachers and employees and not for the Principal and Superintendent. Thus, according to the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Deputy Director, Madrassa Education, no reservation is applicable for the posts of Principal and Superintendent in the minority institutions. Thus, according to the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Deputy Director, Madrassa Education, no reservation is applicable for the posts of Principal and Superintendent in the minority institutions. In other words, as contended in the affidavit, such reservations are applicable in respect of other posts involved in such minority institutions, but not in the posts of Superintendent and Principal. 31. Section 5 of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978, states about reservation for SC and ST in vacancies to be filled up by promotion. Similarly, Section 4 of the act states about such reservation in direct recruitment. Section 6 empowers the Government to exempt in specialised service or posts from the purview of reservation. Such exemption can be made by notification in the Official Gazette. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record that the posts of Superintendent and Principal have been exempted from the purview of reservation, as envisaged under the provisions of the said Act. The decision on which Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned standing Counsel, Education, has placed reliance, i.e., P.A. Inamdar (supra) to contend that there cannot be any reservation in minority institutions like Madrassas, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. P.A. Inamdar was a case relating to admission to professional courses in unaided Minority Educational Institutions and the Apex Court was concerned with the scope and ambit of constitutional provisions relating thereto. 32. In the instant case, the institutions with which we are concerned is under the deep and pervasive control of the Government of Assam and the said institutions had accepted all the benefits extended to them by the Government. Mr. Choudhury's argument also round counter to the stand of the Government. In this connection, the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education and the Government letters referred to above will have a bearing in which it is never the contention of the Government that no reservation is applicable to the said institutions, rather it is the stand of the Government that reservations are applicable. 33. In the first two writ petitions, the petitioners have also contended about the failure on the part of the authorities to provide reservation to physically handicapped and other categories, which will also include reservation relating to women. 34. 33. In the first two writ petitions, the petitioners have also contended about the failure on the part of the authorities to provide reservation to physically handicapped and other categories, which will also include reservation relating to women. 34. In the 3rd writ petition, it is the specific case of the petitioners that they are entitled to reservation as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the rules. As to what is the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit has been noted above. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the said case has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nipen Das v. State of Assam 2007 (2) GLT 418. In the said decision, the selection and appointments in question had been interfered with when it was found that there was wholesome violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts and the Rules. 35. In paragraph 25 of the first writ petition, it is specific plea of the petitioners that though the State Selection Board was constituted with 7(seven) members including the Chairman and the Member Secretary but at the time of interview, only four members were found present by the petitioners. Dealing with the said paragraph 15 of the writ petition, what has been contended is that the selection was duly conducted and during the period of interview, five members including the Member Secretary of the State Selection Board was constantly present in the interview. According to the said affidavit, the Chairman attended the interview on 22.12.2008 and the Director of Madrassa Education also attended the interview on 20.12.2008 and 22.12.2008. 36. In paragraph 9 of the first writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the Government of Assam in the Finance Department had accorded approval vide their letter No. FSI.437/07. dated 1.3.2008 for filling up the posts of Superintendent and Principal, only after the Department of Education made it known in their communication that the posts would be filled up only by promotion and not by direct recruitment. dated 1.3.2008 for filling up the posts of Superintendent and Principal, only after the Department of Education made it known in their communication that the posts would be filled up only by promotion and not by direct recruitment. This particular stand of the petitioners has been dealt with in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit only with the statement that as per the provisions of Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995 selection for appointment to the post of Superintendent and Principal is to be made by the State Selection Board, meaning thereby that the said post shall be filled up by direct recruitment and not by promotion. This is not satisfactory explanation to the definite plea raised by the petitioners regarding according approval by the Finance Department towards filling up the posts only by way of promotion. This is moreso, when the Act is silent as to how the posts would be filled up. Merely because there is prescription of a State Selection Board for appointment to the posts of Superintendent and Principal, same does not mean that appointments can be made only by direct recruitment and not otherwise. The respondents in their counter affidavit ought to have been more specific having regard to the definite stand of the petitioners about the approval of the Finance Department for filling up the posts only by promotion. 37. It has been noted above that the members of the Madrassa Education Board and the Selection Board are not party respondents to this proceeding, thus, no adverse orders could be passed against them in their absence. In Rajkumar (supra), however, the Apex Court even in absence of such parties held that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence will have not application in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In Vinod Kumar Sangal v. Union of India 1995 (4) SCC 246 , the Apex Court noticing the illegality committed in the particular selection but in view of non-impleadment of the select list, issued direction for fresh consideration year-wise as was the case of the petitioners. 38. In the instant case also, we have noticed the stand of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondents. 38. In the instant case also, we have noticed the stand of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondents. The specific pleas relating to reservation both vertical and horizontal, constitution of the Madrassa and the Selection Board, members present in the selection, posts are to be filled up by promotion and not by direct recruitment, etc., I am of the considered opinion that the matter needs consideration of the Government in the appropriate department and if need be, consultation of all the departments involved and then to arrive at a decision regarding validity or otherwise of the selection conducted. 39. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Chief Secretary of the State to decide the issue relating to validity or otherwise of the selection in the light of the discussions made above. In the decision making process, he will associate all the concerned departments and then pass a speaking order. Entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Till then, the interim order passed earlier shall continue. 40. All the writ petitions are answered in the above manner. There shall be no order as to costs.