Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya Sanchalak Samiti v. Education Inspector, Greater Bombay and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Appeal disposed of; interim order dated 29 January 2001 made absolute, but only to continue until final disposal by the High Court; High Court directed to dispose of the writ petition preferably within three months; operation of the High Court order stayed so long as the challenge has effect until final adjudication.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya Sanchalak Samiti

Respondents

Education Inspector, Greater Bombay
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.T.M. Rangaramanujam
• M.A. Chinnasamy
• Vimal Wadhawani
• K. Krishna Kumar
• Ruby Singh Ahuja

Counsels for Respondents

• Chirag M. Shroff
• Mukesh Kumar
• Mahima C. Shroff
• S.S. Shinde
• Asha Gopalan Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal, under Civil Appeal No. 5979 of 2001, challenges an interlocutory order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2000. The High Court had quashed an Education Inspector’s order dated 30.9.2000, which refused approval for several teacher appointments made by Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya, Mumbai, for alleged violations of Rules. In an interim stroke, the High Court granted ad hoc approvals to some teachers. The Supreme Court, however, held that there is no provision in the rules permitting ad hoc or partial approval and that such interim orders effectively amount to final relief, which should not be granted. The Court criticized the High Court’s approach and stressed that the writ petition should be decided on merits at the earliest. While the appeal was pending, the Court had stayed the operation of the High Court order to the extent challenged, with the direction that the writ petition be disposed of promptly. Subsequently, the interim order dated 29 January 2001 was made absolute but limited to continue only until final disposal by the High Court. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the writ petition, preferably within three months of receiving a copy of its order. Ultimately, the Civil Appeal was disposed of. The decision underscores the principle that interim relief cannot substitute for adjudication on the merits and that ad hoc approvals are impermissible under the Rules.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interim orders should not amount to final relief
There is no provision for ad hoc approval; half-way measures should not be used.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to grant ad hoc approvals for appointments made in alleged violation of rules. They urge that a writ petition under Article 226 should be decided on its merits without interim relief that effectively subverts the merits, and that approvals must be either granted in full or rejected, with no scope for partial, intermediate relief. They request expeditious disposal of the writ petition by the High Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the High Court’s interim relief as a provisional measure in the face of pending adjudication, arguing conformity with rules and the necessity to preserve legitimate appointments pending final determination. They emphasize prompt resolution of the writ petition and regard the High Court’s order as a legitimate response to the disputed approvals.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

DA YANAND VEDIC VIDHALA YA SANCHALK SAMIT! _v._ EDUCATION INSPECTOR, GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR. OCTOBER 25, 2007 [A.K. **MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]** A ## _Interlocutory Orders:_ _Writ petition of quashing order of Education Inspector rejecting_ c _approval of appointment of teachers-Appointments stated to have_ . _been made in violation of Rules-High Court, by interlocutory order, granting_ **ad hoc** _approval to some teachers-HELD: In such a petition_ · _there was no scope for grant of any interim order and instead writ petition should have been decided finally at an early date-Interim·_ D _order really amounts to grant of final relief-This kind of practice should be discontinued and should not be encouraged-High Court would expedite disposal of the matter finally-Meanwhile interim order passed by Supreme Court would continue-Practice and ProcedureConstitution of India-Article 226._ E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5979 of 2001. From the Interlocutory Order dated 23.11.2000 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2209 of2000. F 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 of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 705 H --I, [2007] 11 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 706 y A 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 of the Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai dated 30.9.2000. The order dated 30.9.2000 states that since 8[certain appointments ][of ][teachers ][were ][made ][by ][the ][Dayanand Vedic ] Vidyalaya, Mumbai in violation of the Rules, approval for such appointments is rejected. 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 c finally at an early date. However, what the High Court has done by the impugned interim order is to direct grant of _ad hoc_ approval to some teachers. _...._ ,., This is a strange order passed by the High Court. D There is no provision in the rules for grant of _ad_ ~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 of practice of granting such interim orders should be E 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 of the order under Challenge shall remain stayed unless the order under challenge has F[already ][given ][effect ][to." ][The ][writ ][petition ][is ][still ][pending ][before ][the ][High ] Court of Bombay. We request the High Court to dispose off the matter finally, if not disposed off so far, preferably within a period of three 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 G made absolute, but shall only continue ~ill the final disposal of the writ petition by the High Court. .~ _(_ The Civil Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. RP. Appeal disposed of. H