STATE OF KERALA Vs. GOVINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not think the learned Judge was justified in passing the judgment under appeal on a petition for direction. CMP. No. 5286 of 1978 on which the judgment was passed, complained of non compliance with the judgment in OP No. 1546 of 1976. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned judge in the CMP. the State has preferred this appeal. The respondent moved a writ petition OP. No. 1546 of 1976 in this Court challenging a prior order passed by the Educational Authorities. A learned Judge of this Court allowed that writ petition and quashed the impugned order. The relevant portion of this Court's judgment has been quoted by the learned Judge in Para.2 of the judgment under appeal as follows:

(2.) We need not, and do not propose to, consider whether Ext. A2 order, passed by the Director of Public Instruction was in violation of the judgment of this Court in OP. No. 1546 of 1976. Assuming this was so, was the said order liable to be quashed in a miscellaneous petition Could a direction, for reconsideration and fresh orders issue on such petition We think the respondent is not entitled to have the order quashed or set aside in effect, on a mere CMP. for directions. To encourage that to be done, would, we are afraid, flood this Court with miscellaneous petitions claiming substantive relief. It was inappropriate that the learned Judge proceeded in effect to set aside Ext. A2 order on such a petition. The learned Judge himself has noted that ordinarily the petitioner could raise such question only by filing a fresh writ petition or by initiating other appropriate proceedings such as an application for contempt of Court. But the learned Judge was unhesitatingly of the view that this Court could entertain such a petition for direction and grant relief by way of quashing Ext. A2 order in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. We are unable to accept or to agree with this proposition as thus stated by the learned Judge. The learned Judge's judgment in effect amounts to quashing Ext A2 order, as there was a direction to the Director of Public Instruction to pass fresh orders taking due note of the directions given in the judgment and pointing out that the judgment in OP No. 1546 of 1976 had clearly and unhesitatingly expressed the view that twelve years service irrespective of whether it was as High School Assistant or not would count for the purpose of getting the higher grade. While we are at one with the learned Judge that Courts of law are there to do justice, we cannot countenance their breaking the cordon of procedural shackles. We allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that CMP. No. 5286 of 1978 will stand dismissed. We make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment will preclude the respondent from taking appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for the purpose of vindicating his rights. No order as to costs.