Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusSURINDER KUMAR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 348
- Decided
- 20 December 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- L M SHARMA
Holding
A decision is a precedent only if it decides a question of law, the Supreme Court is not bound to assign reasons for every order, and the High Court cannot regularise temporary employees without adequate reasoning, as its writ jurisdiction is limited by judicial precedents and does not enjoy the powers conferred by Article 142.
Summary
The respondents were appointed as part‑time lecturers under conditions that allowed removal without notice and payment on an hourly basis. They filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking regularisation on the regular pay scale. The High Court, without addressing the parties’ arguments, allowed the petition by a brief order. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court cannot regularise temporary employees without stating reasons and that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 does not bind the High Court. The Supreme Court held that a decision becomes a precedent only when it decides a question of law, that the Court is not obliged to give reasons for every order, and that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is limited by established judicial precedents and cannot regularise temporary staff without adequate reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a decision constitutes a precedent only when it decides a question of law
- Whether the Supreme Court must assign reasons for every order or judgment
- Whether a High Court can regularise temporary or ad‑hoc government employees without stating reasons
- Scope and limitations of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in light of Article 142 of the Constitution
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 141, s. Article 142, s. Article 226
Subjects
precedentreasons for judgmentArticle 142Article 226writ jurisdictiontemporary employee regularisationSupreme Court discretionHigh Court discretion
Judgment
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A
v.
"' SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS.
"'' DECEMBER 20, 1991
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. S. VERMA AND S. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B
Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 136, 141, 142-Court' s decision-When is a precedent---Neces-
.... sity of assigning reasons, explained-Whether it is imperative on Supreme
Court to assign reasons for every order. c
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-High Court's power~Whether circum-
scribed by limitations discussed and declared by judicial decisions.
The respondents who were appointed as part-time lecturers on the
specific conditions that they would be paid on hourly basis and would be D
removed at any time without notice, as provided in the Instructfons of the
Director of Education, State of Punjab, issued in 1990, filed a writ petition
1
before the High Court claiming their regularisation as lecturers on regular
pay scale.
The appellants refuted petitioners' claim and filed a detailed written E
statement distinguishing part-time appointees from the regularly ap-
pointed lacturers. It was also pointed out that similar petitions were ear-
lier dismissed by this Court.
The High Court, without dealing with any of the points raised by the
appellants, allowed the writ petition by a cryptic order.
F
In appeal by special leave to this Court filed by the appellants, the
respondents supported the High Court's order contending that this Court
issued directions for absorption of temporary or ad-hoc government
~ servants on permanent basis in several cases and, therefore, it should be G
open to the High Court as well to allow writ petitions 'in similar terms.
-- Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a
question of law. [p. 556 CJ H
553
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.
:.,..
A 1.2 In the instant case, the respondents were not entitled to rely upon .
an order of this Court directing a temporary employee to be regularised :-4
in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for
special grounds which must have been available to the temporary employ·.
ees in particular cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. [p. 556CJ
...,.
B Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this '
Court, it cannot be understood to have been passed without an adequate
legal basis therefor. [p. 556 CD]
2.1 It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or
judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case or this Court.
c [p. 556EJ
2.2 On the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order
a distinction has to be kept in mind between a Court whose judgment is
not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for
disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable
D a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. [556 DJ
,
2.3 The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme
Court to make such orders as may be necessary ''for doing complete
justice in any case or matter pending before it", which authority the High
Court does not enjoy. [p. 556 EFJ
E
3.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ
petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the
judicial decisions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims -,..
or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge. [p. 556 FGJ
3.2 The High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion in
F deciding writ petitions or Civil revision applications but this discretion has
to be confined in declining to entertain petitions and refusing to grant
relief, asked for by petitioners, on adequate considerations: and it does not
permit the High Court to grant relief ~n such a consideration alone. '·
,,,,...._
[p. 556 GHJ
G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 5060of1991. -....-
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1991 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 3150/91.
A.S.Sohal and G.K.Bansal for the Appellants.
H Sanjay Kapur and R.P.Kapur for the Respondents.
STATE v. SURINDER [SHARMA, J.] 555
-
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: A
SHARMA, J. This special leave petition is directed against the order of
the High Court dated 4.4.1991 disposing of a writ petition filed by the present
two respondents. The entire judgment reads thus:
-- "On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that the just and fair order should be that the petitioners who have
B
been appointed on part time basis should be continued until the
~- Govt make regular appointments on the recommendations of the
public service commiss.ion. Meanwhile the petitioners will get
their salary for the period of the vacation."
c
Notice was issued to the respondents asking them to get ready for final disposal
of the case, and accordingly they have filed their counter affidavit followed by
further affidavits by the parties.
--- 2. Special leave is granted.
D
"f 3. In pursuance of certain Instructions issued by the Director, Education
Department of the State of Punjab in 1990, each of the respondents was offered
a post, as per annexures P/l and P/2'respectively, of part time lecturer on the
specific condition that he could be relieved at any time without notice, and that
the payment would be made at the rate indicated therein on hourly basis. The
respondents accepted the offers, and were appointed accordingly. On 26.2.1991 E
the respondents filed the writ petition (CWP No. 3150/91), contending that
- they were entitled to be regularised in their posts as lecturers with salary on
regular pay scale.
4. A written statement was filed refuting the claim in the writ petition and
_,.... giving the reference of similar writ petitions which had been earlier dismissed
F
by this Court The respondents also detailed relevant facts which clearly
distinguish the regularly appointed lecturers from the part time appointees, and
,.< indicate that the writ petition was fit to be dismissed. The court, however,
'
without dealing with any of the points raised by the appellants (respondenl'I
before the High Court) allowed the writ petition by a cryptic order, which has G
been quoted above.
5. It is not contested that an Instruction by the Education Department was
issued in pursuance of which the appointments of the respondents in question
were made as part time lecturers. It is also not suggested that the respondents
accepted the. terms set out in annexures P/1 and P/2 under mistake. We, H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C. R.
A therefore, do not find any reason as to why the specific terms on which the
appointments. were made could not be enforced. We have gone through the
special leave petition, the respondent's counter affidavit and the other affida-
vits filed by the parties, and do not·find any relevant material or tenable plea
in support of the claim in the writ petition filed in the High Court. The learned
counsel for the respondents also could not suggest any ground for sustaining
B the impugned order except contending that this Court has issued directions for
absorption of tempo.rary or ad-hoc-Government servants on permanent basis in
several cases. It has been argued that if this could be done by this Court without
assigning any reason, it should be open to the High Courts as well to allow writ
petitions in similar terms. We are not in a position to agree.
C 6. A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of
law. The respondents are, therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this
Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service
without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for special grounds which
must have·beeq available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were
entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a
..
D judgmentof this Court, it cannot be understood to have ·been passed without
an adequate legal basis therefor. On the question of the requirement to assign
reasons for an order, a distinction has to'be kept in mind between a court whose
judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main
reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is
E to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of
course, pesirable to assign reasons ·for every order or judgment,· but the
requirement is not imperative in the case of this Court. It is, therefore, futile to
suggest that if this Court has issued an order which apparently seems to be
similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so. There is still
another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with this Court. The
F Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make.such
orders as may be necessary "for doing complete justice in any case or matter
pending before it", which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The
jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circum-
scribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions, and
it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of
G justice varying from Judge to Judge.
7. It is true that the High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial
discretion in deciding writ petitions or civil revision applications but this
discretion has to be confined in declining to entertain petitions and refusing to
grant relief, asked for by petitioners, on adequate considerations; and it does
not permit the High Court to grant relief on such a consideration alone.
STATE v. SURINDER [SHARMA, J.] 557
8. We, therefore, reject the argument addressed on behalf of the respon- A
dents that the High Court was entitled to pass any order which it thought fit in
the interest of justice. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow
the appeal, but in the circumstances without costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
'·
I .
/
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "precedent"Sign in to search