In State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Akhtar Hussain & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan passed a 9-page long order dated April 23, 2026, it concluded:"12. Though, we agree with the submission that merits of an appeal or for that matter of any case is to be considered only if it is presented within the period of limitation or the delay is condoned upon satisfactory explanation for the delay, the fact remains that the Writ Court while passing the order in favour of the private respondents had relied upon an earlier order passed by the said Court. The earlier order of the Court had been categoric, and rightly so, in giving liberty to the appellant to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. This right to pass a fresh order, as was saved in the earlier order passed on identical facts, has not been reserved for the appellant in the impugned order passed in the instant case. 13. In such circumstances, when the impugned order of the Writ Court was passed on ground of parity, there was no justification for the Writ Court for not reserving similar liberty to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity for hearing. Therefore, to do complete justice, we are of the view that the order passed by the Writ Court needs modification. We, accordingly, direct that though the order of the Writ Court shall be complied with, however, it shall be open for the appellant to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The appeal arose from a 3-page long order dated April 16, 2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The private respondents herein were appointed/engaged as Shiksha Swayamsevaks under the Talimi Markaz Scheme. Initially appointment/ engagement was for a fixed term which was renewable. It appears that after their initial period of engagement was over, the term was renewed. However, later, their services were dispensed with on the ground that they did not belong to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslim Community. Aggrieved by dispensation of their services, private respondents invoked writ jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that their services were dispensed with without giving opportunity of hearing to them.
Earlier, in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Akhtar Hussain & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Pd. Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated April 16, 2025, it concluded:"It is a State LPA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again held that belated litigation on behalf of the State is deprecated. In the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary decided in [SLP (C) Diary No.48636 of 2024] on November 29, 2024 read with H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated in filing belated litigation in particularly State litigation, in fact cost of Rs. 1,000,00/- (Rupees One Lakh) has been imposed in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary. Taking note of the principal laid down in the aforementioned decisions, the appellant have not made out a case so as to condone the delay of about 1 year and 313 days excluding COVID-19 period of about 11 months. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 of 2024 stands dismissed. 4. Resultantly, LPA No. 429 of 2022 stands dismissed."
No comments:
Post a Comment