DAYANAND VEDIC VIDHALAYA SANCHALK SAMITI v. EDUCATION INSPECTOR, GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 705

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

DAYANAND VEDIC VIDHALAYA SANCHALK SAMITI v. EDUCATION INSPECTOR, GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

DAYANAND VEDIC VIDHALAYA SANCHALK SAMIT! v. EDUCATION INSPECTOR, GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR. OCTOBER 25, 2007 [A. K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] Interlocutory Orders: Writ petition ofquashing order ofEducation Inspector rejecting approval ofappointment ofteachers-Appointments stated to have . been made in violation ofRules-High Court, by interlocutory order, granting ad hoc approval to some teachers-HELD: In such a petition · there was no scope for grant ofany interim order and instead writ petition should have been decided finally at an early date-Interim· order really amounts to grant offinal relief-This kind ofpractice should be discontinued and should not be encouraged-High Court would expedite disposal ofthe matterfinally-Meanwhile interim order passed by Supreme Court would continue-Practice and Procedure- Constitution ofIndia-Article 226. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5979 of 2001. From the Interlocutory Order dated 23. 11.

2000 ofthe High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2209 of2000. A. T. M. Rangaramanujam, M. A. Chinnasamy, Vimal Wadhawani, K. Krishna Kumar and Ruby Singh Ahuja for the Appellant. Chirag M. Shroff, Mukesh Kumar, Mahima C. Shroff, S. S. Shinde and Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents. 0 The Order ofthe Court was delivered ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the parties. --I, . ,.. __~ ) y This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned interlocutory order dated 23rd November, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 2209 of2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay. The prayer in that writ petition was for quashing the order ofthe Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai dated 30. 9. 2000. The order dated 30. 9. 2000 states that since certain appointments of teachers were made by the Dayanand Vedic 8 Vidyalaya, Mumbai in violation of the Rules, approval for such _.... _ appointments is rejected. 1 : ,.

, In our opinion in such a petition there was no scope for grant of any interim order, and instead the writ petition should have been decided finally at an early date. However, what the High Court has done by the impugned interim order is to direct grant ofad hoc approval to some teachers. This is a strange order passed by the High Court. There is no provision in the rules for grant ofad~oc approval. Either approval is granted, or the prayer is rejected. There is no scope for a half way measure like that adopted by the High Court. We cannot appreciate such kind of interim orders which really amount to grant of final relief. This kind ofpractice ofgranting such interim orders should be discontinued and should not be encouraged. However in this appeal against the order of the High Court, this Comt on 29th January, 2001 observed that "the operation ofthe order under Challenge shall remain stayed unless the order under challenge has already given effect to.

" The writ petition is still pending before the High Court of Bombay. We request the High Court to dispose offthe matter finally, ifnot disposed offso far, preferably within a period ofthree months from the date on which a copy of this order is received by it. ( The interim order dated 29th January, 2001 passed by this Court is made absolute, but shall only continue ~ill the final disposal ofthe writ petition by the High Court. . ~ The Civil Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. RP. Appeal disposed of.