Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Vijay Goyal And Others on 5 July, 2024
Author: G. S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G. S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA NO.1426 OF 2023 (O&M)
RESERVED ON : MAY 23, 2024
DATE OF DECISION : JULY 05, 2024
State of Haryana ...Appellant
Versus
Vijay Goyal and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate,
For the appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate and
Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate,
For the respondents.
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
CM-3627 and 3625-LPA-2023
These are applications for condonation of delay of 70 days in
filing and 62 days in re-filing the appeal.
In view of the averments made in the applications duly
supported by an affidavit, the applications are allowed. Delay stands
condoned.
LPA-1426-2023
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is to an order
dated March 14, 2023 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge in CWP
No.23356 of 2022 (Vijay Goyal v. State of Haryana and others), whereby
1 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
the Hon'ble Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by setting-aside the
impugned order dated October 06, 2022 (Annexure P-13). The three issues
which were framed for adjudication by the Hon'ble Single Judge are as
follows:-
"1) If the employee clears/passes the special examination
held by All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter
referred to as the "AICTE") under the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Ltd. V. Rabi Sankar Patra and others, reported
as (2018) 1 SCC 468 and (2018) 2 SCC 298, in the first
attempt, then, whether the engineering degree obtained by
distance education mode would stand validated from the date
of the degree or from the date of clearing the test held by
AICTE?
ii) In case there are two sources of recruitment to the post
in the cadre namely direct recruits and promotees, whether it is
permissible to count seniority of direct recruits from the date of
recommendation made by the State Public Service
Commission/Recruiting Agency/Board, particularly when the
Service Rules framed in the exercise of powers under Article
309 of the Constitution of India, provide that the seniority shall
be determined by the length of continuous service ?
iii) Whether it is permissible to determine the inter-se
seniority between direct recruits and promotees on the basis of
instructions issued on 16.03.1962, particularly when the
Service Rules, notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, provide for determination of seniority in a different
manner ?"
2. As regards Issue No.1, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the
impugned order dated October 06, 2022 of Principal Secretary was patently
erroneous in considering the judgment mentioned in Orissa Lift Irrigation
(supra), inasmuch as the Supreme Court had only ordered that the
engineering degrees of the students who were enrolled during the academic
years 2001-2005 be suspended till such time they cleared the special tests
held by AICTE and did not declare such degrees to be per se illegal.
Furthermore, it was held that those candidates, who passed the special test
held by AICTE in the first attempt (i.e in June, 2018) would be entitled to
2 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
retain all the incidence/benefits of the degrees. Since both the petitioner and
respondent No.4/Satish Garg (SG) had cleared the special examination held
in June, 2018 in the first attempt, the Hon'ble Single Judge opined that the
inter se seniority list between the petitioner and the private respondents was
required to be decided afresh by the competent authority.
3. The Hon'ble Single Judge also noted that counsel for private
respondent No.4 had drawn the attention of the Court to the orders passed
on August 13, 2019 in "Ashok Kumar and others v. Deepinder Singh
Dhesi and others" (2019) 8 SCC 280, to contend that the writ petitioner
should be considered to be qualified only from the date on which the result
of AICTE was declared, as the intent of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) was
only to restore the status-quo ante and not confer any additional advantage.
Therefore, no ante dated promotion could be granted to the writ petitioner
relying on the judgment of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra). With regard to
the aforesaid contention, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the Supreme
Court had only dismissed the contempt petitions in Ashok Kumar's case
(supra) and the discussion therein was not relevant for the purpose of
deciding Issue No.1. As the shadow or eclipse over the petitioner's degree
stood removed on account of clearing the special examination held by
AICTE in the first attempt in June, 2018 and the degree became valid from
the original date when he had acquired the same, Issue No.1 was decided in
favour of the petitioner.
4. As regards Issues No.2 and 3, it was held that the Additional
Chief Secretary (for short, "ACS"), erred in relying upon the instructions
issued on March 16, 1962 because the said instructions were neither
applicable to the petitioner nor governed the inter se seniority especially
3 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
when the Punjab Municipal Service (Integration, Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules (for short, "1982 Rules"), had been
implemented to govern the said field. Thus, he was of the opinion that the
ACS had erred in making the observation that the direct recruits who joined
on August 26, 2009 were senior to the petitioner. For the purpose of
deciding the writ petition, the 1982 Rules as well as The Haryana Municipal
Service (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules (for
short, "2010 Rules"), had to be considered for determining the seniority
inter se the parties, by considering the continuous length of service of the
employee. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Single Judge directed that a fresh
seniority list be drawn, after considering the case of petitioner, and other
direct recruits viz. Vivek Singh, Ankit Lohan, Manjit Singh Dahiya,
Mohinder Singh, Yograj etc.
5. The succinct facts leading to the present dispute are culled out
hereinafter:-
i) The writ petitioner-Vijay Goyal was awarded a Diploma in
Civil Engineering in 1997, and he completed his B.Tech (Civil
Engineering) from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth in 2007.
ii) He was appointed as Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis on May
01, 1998 with Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Medical Research and
Education, Agroha (Hisar). Vide an order dated December 04, 2002, his
services were regularized w.e.f. the date of appointment. In June 2005, the
petitioner was sent on deputation to the Municipal Committee, Kalka as a
Junior Engineer and was ultimately merged into/adjusted in the Municipal
service on May 31, 2006. As per the terms of his absorption, he would be
4 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
entitled to the benefits of seniority from the date of merger and his service
would be governed by the 1982 Rules.
iii) The petitioner was promoted as Municipal Engineer on August
21, 2009. In June 2018, he cleared the special test conducted by AICTE for
validation of his Civil Engineering degree awarded by JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, in the first attempt itself.
iv) The petitioner had filed a previous writ petition being CWP-
25096-2017 seeking directions to consider his claim for promotion to the
post of Executive Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted i.e.
June 29, 2017 as he was aggrieved by his promotion as Executive Engineer
with effect from January 22, 2019. Vide order dated October 11, 2018, the
writ was disposed of with directions to decide his legal notice within a
period of 8 weeks.
v) Subsequently, the petitioner moved another representation
dated February 12, 2019 (Annexure P-42) before the authorities seeking
promotion to the post of Municipal Engineer with effect from January 31,
2007 and to the post of Executive Engineer from September 01, 2014, after
giving him relaxation of four months of experience. Vide orders dated April
30, 2019 (Annexure P-7) the Principal Secretary to Government of
Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department found the claim of the petitioner
to be justified and accordingly vide order dated May 27, 2019, he was
granted ante-dated promotion to the post of Municipal Engineer with effect
from January 31, 2007 and to the post of Executive Engineer with effect
from September 01, 2014. Thereafter, he was promoted as Superintendent
Engineer vide order dated September 17, 2019 (Annexure P-8).
5 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
vi) On March 02, 2022, the petitioner was issued Show Cause
Notice (Annexure P-10) seeking his comments as to why the aforesaid
benefit of deemed promotions as Municipal Engineer, Executive Engineer
and Superintendent Engineer be not withdrawn. The petitioner submitted
detailed replies to the Show Cause Notice on March 21, 2022 and August
16, 2022.
vii) Vide impugned order dated 06th October, 2022, the benefit of
deemed dates of promotion (as Municipal Engineer from 31st January, 2007,
as Executive Engineer from 01st September, 2014 and as Superintendent
Engineer vide order dated 17th September 2019) granted to the petitioner
were withdrawn.
6. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the State was
only challenging the finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard to
Issue No.1. Since the Hon'ble Single Judge gave the State liberty to re-draw
the seniority list after considering the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis other
recruits, the State was not challenging the findings on Issues No.2 and 3.
She argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge had erred in granting the benefits
and advantages to the writ petitioner, which had not accrued to him on the
date of the judgment, passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) i.e on
November 03, 2017.
7. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Counsel has strenuously
argued that undisputedly the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 in the appeal,
cleared the special test held by AICTE in the first attempt i.e. in June, 2018
and therefore, his Engineering Degree stood validated from the date the
degree was issued in 2007. It was also not in dispute that the petitioner had
6 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
taken admission for distance learning course in 2003 and therefore, he was
admitted during the academic sessions of 2001-2005. It was a case where
the petitioner's degree was kept in abeyance till such time he passed the
special test held by AICTE and the degree was not per se illegal. All the
candidates who passed the special test in the first attempt would have their
degrees validated and could retain the advantages/benefits flowing from the
same from the date on which the degree was issued and not from the date
when they passed the special test. Therefore, the petitioner should be
allowed to retain the benefits of ante-dated promotions bestowed on him as
he was squarely covered by the judgment passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation
(supra). Such benefits could not be granted from the date of clearing of the
test held by AICTE and had to be granted from the date when the
engineering degrees obtained through distance education mode stood
validated.
8. This Court has heard the arguments of the parties and the
materials placed on record. To reach a logical conclusion, it would be
important to appreciate and understand the directions passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in judgment dated November 03, 2017 passed in Orissa Lift
Irrigation (supra). The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinafter:-
"57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-
facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in
normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside
such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential
directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance
thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of degrees in
Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves
had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities
to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is required to be
considered with some sympathy so that interest of those
students who were enrolled during the academic sessions
2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact
7 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly
violated and entered into areas where they had no experience
and started conducting courses through distance education
system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned
students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees
in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto
approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities
available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked
nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this
length of time to order any inspection. But there must be
confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the
concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to
grant some chance to the concerned students to have their
ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We,
therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted
to students who were enrolled during the academic years
2001-2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such
examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in
the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single
advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand
suspended.
58. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from
the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate
test/tests both in written examination as well as in practical for
the concerned students admitted during the academic session
2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects . It is entirely
left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such
modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that
behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of
Technology in respective states wherever the students are
located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at
the examination which ideally should be conducted during
May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine.
Not more than two chances be given to the concerned students
and if they do not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand
and recalled cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to
appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such
student toward tuition and other charges shall be refunded to
that student by the concerned Deemed to be University within
a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given
time till 15th of January, 2018 to exercise such option. The
entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in respect of
students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from
the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If
they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the
advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned
candidates. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the
concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time
stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their
degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand
recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any
8 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such
degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary
benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered
from them.
Xxx
66. Accordingly, we direct:
66.1 The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to deemed to be
universities and the deemed to be universities in the present
matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in
technical education without the approval of AICTE.
66.2 Insofar as candidates enrolled during the academic
sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto
approvals granted by UGC and their authorities concerned are
set aside.
66.3 Consequent to aforesaid Direction 66.2, all the degrees in
Engineering awarded by deemed to be universities concerned
stand suspended.
66.4 AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an
appropriate test(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option
be given to the students concerned whose degrees stand
suspended by 15-1-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be
conducted in accordance with the directions in para 58 above.
Students be given not more than two chances to clear test(s)
and if they do not successfully clear the test(s) within the
stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the
advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in paras 57 and 58
above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) shall
be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by
31-3-2018.
66.5 Those students who do not wish to exercise the option,
shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards
tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise
of such option. Needless to say, their degrees shall stand
cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as
mentioned in para 58.
66.6 If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated
time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and
their degrees will stand revived fully.
66.7 As regards students who were admitted after the
academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering
awarded by the deemed to be universities concerned through
distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as
cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand
withdrawn as indicated in para 59 above. However, the entire
9 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
amount paid by such students to the deemed to be universities
concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be
returned by the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-5-
2018, as indicated in para 59.
Xxx''
9. Subsequently, on various applications being moved seeking
clarification and modification of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court on November 03, 2017, such directions were clarified vide order
dated January 22, 2018 reported in 2018 2 SCC 298. The relevant extract of
the said clarification order is as follows:-
"26. We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those
candidates who were enrolled during the academic years
2001-2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to
appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:-
26.1 All such candidates, who wish to appear at the
forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June, 2018
and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the
judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the
advantages flowing there from till one month after the
declaration of the result of such text or till 31.07.2018
whichever is earlier:
26.2 This facility is given as one-time exception so that those
who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt
itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidate pass
in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the
advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear; the
directions in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and
all the advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At
the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no more such
chances or exceptions will be given or made. They will
undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in
terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply for
such second attempt." (emphasis supplied)
10. Thereafter, contempt petitions No. 408-409 of 2019 were
moved alleging that the judgment and clarification order in Orissa Lift
Irrigation (supra) had been willfully and deliberately violated. These
contempt petitions though came to be dismissed in Ashok Kumar's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified the directions passed in
10 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) by observing that those candidates who, on
the strength of the degrees awarded through distance education mode had
attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits
as on the date of judgment and cleared the examination their benefits would
stand restored. In the event the candidates cleared the examination in the
first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in their continuous
enjoyment of such benefits and facilities. The Supreme Court clarified that
the idea was not to deprive any candidate of the status that they were
enjoying on the date of judgment, provided they could prove their worth
and ability.
11. However, if the candidates concerned had not attained any
particular status as on the date when the judgment was passed, the width of
directions could not be extended to confer any additional advantage which
they had not even enjoyed on that date. The relevant extract is reproduced
herein below:
"14. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the
strength of such degrees awarded through distance education
mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were
enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if
they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored.
If the candidates could clear the examination in the first
attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous
enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was,
candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they
were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the
candidates could prove their worth and ability.
15. But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any
particular status, as on the date when the Judgment [Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC
468] was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer
any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on
the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be
entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates
were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the
judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the
directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates
11 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are
available in accordance with law, but "restoration" would
only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the
date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status
quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the
Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar
Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and the Order [Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 2 SCC
298]."
XXX XXX XXX
12. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the benefits the
writ petitioner was seeking to retain, which were conferred to him on April
30, 2019 i.e. after November 03, 2017 [the date of judgment passed in
Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra)] could be allowed. Vide order dated April 30,
2019, the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Local
Bodies Department not only considered the legal notice dated August 21,
2017 which was the subject matter of consideration in the first writ petition
being CWP No.25096 of 2017 but also considered a subsequent
representation dated February 12, 2019 (Annexure P-42) which was never
the subject matter in consideration in the first writ petition. This Court vide
order dated October 11, 2018 in CWP No.25096 of 2017 only directed the
respondents/authorities to consider the grievance raised in the legal notice
dated August 21, 2017 and decide the same keeping in view the judgment
passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra). In the legal notice dated August
21, 2017, the petitioner only prayed for ante-dated promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer with effect from June 29, 2017, when his juniors had
been promoted.
13. Even though there was no direction by this Court to consider
any subsequent representation still the Principal Secretary erroneously
proceeded to decide the subsequent representation of the petitioner dated
February 12, 2019. Vide the 2019 representation, the writ petitioner
12 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
expanded the scope of his claim and sought promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer with effect from September 01, 2014, (instead of June
29, 2017) after giving him relaxation of four months. The petitioner also
claimed promotion to the post of Municipal Engineer from January 31,
2007 (the date of passing of his degree) at par with some other candidates
who were junior to him by contending that he had joined as a Junior
Engineer on May 01, 1998 and after acquiring B.Tech degree on January
31, 2007, he should have been considered for promotion to the post of
Municipal Engineer on and from January 31, 2007. After acquiring seven
years of experience, a Municipal Engineer who had an Engineering degree
would become eligible for the post of Executive Engineer and therefore, the
petitioner should have been granted promotion with effect from September
01, 2014.
14. To the mind of this Court such prayer was erroneously
accepted by the Principal Secretary on April 30, 2019 since the intention in
the judgment and order in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) was only to restore
status-quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage. This Court has
perused the contents of legal notice dated August 21, 2017 which had not
been placed on record by the petitioner but was Annexure P-13 of CWP
No.25096 of 2017 and finds that the prayer was only to grant him
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from June 29, 2017
the date his junior was promoted and not from September 01, 2014 and
there was no prayer for ante-dated promotion to the post of Municipal
Engineer with effect from January 31, 2007. Even if the said prayers were
made in the representation of 2019, they could not have been acceded to in
view of the judgment passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra).
13 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
15. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RA-CW-101-2022 in
CWP-525-2017 "Jagdish Rai Singla v. State of Haryana and others"
decided on March 17, 2023, also clarified the position that the Apex Court
had restricted the right in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) and the test was to
be applied very strictly. Merely because some persons have been wrongly
granted a benefit, no person could be allowed to claim the said benefit as a
matter of right. It is a settled principle that Article 14 does apply in the form
of negative equality. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that even if
some juniors to the petitioner were wrongly given the benefits after the date
of judgment passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra), the same could not be
extended to the petitioner, as on November 03, 2017 he had not been
granted the benefits which he subsequently wanted to be protected.
However, factually it appears that the petitioner was claiming promotion at
par with his juniors with effect from June 29, 2017, vide his legal notice.
Therefore, since the purported promotions to the juniors were given prior to
November 03, 2017, even the case for negative equality also could not be
made out by the petitioner, especially in view of Orissa Lift Irrigation
(supra).
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order
passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge is set-aside to the extent that it holds
that the opinion of the Principal Secretary vide order dated October 06,
2022 is patently erroneous while discussing Issue No.1. Even after noting
Ashok Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Single Judge did not rely on the
findings made therein and erred in holding that merely the contempt
petition was dismissed and the said judgment is not relevant for the purpose
of deciding the present writ petition.
14 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:076564-DB
LPA-1426-2023 (O&M)
17. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the
territory of India, including the High Courts even if the observations have
been made in a contempt petition. Therefore, the findings made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) are also binding on
this Court. Accordingly, the present letters patent appeal is allowed with the
aforesaid observations and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge
dated March 14, 2023 is set-aside and the writ petition is dismissed to that
extent. Connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(G. S. SANDHAWALIA) (LAPITA BANERJI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
JULY 05, 2024
shalini
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
15 of 15
