BAJRANG LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In light of two applications filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the question before this Court is whether to vacate the interim stay order dated 22.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court or not This case has opened up a Pandora's box of hard circumstances, of anomalous situations created by myriad Court orders, and of various legal issues. However, instead of entangling this order in a web of contentions and counter-contentions, it is proposed that the paramount issue raised in the writ petition would be dealt with, the order dated 22.08.2008 would be considered, and lastly the necessity of its continuation or vacation would be decided.

(2.) But before this journey can be undertaken, it is imperative to deal with the preliminary objections raised by Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, about the maintainability and the survival of the applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. It is also essential to deal with the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Sanjay Pareek, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 about the maintainability of the writ petition itself.

(3.) In order to appreciate Mr. Sharma's preliminary objection, it is imperative to first appreciate the progress of this petition through the corridors of this Court. For, this case has a quixotic history: initially the petition was filed as D.B. Civil Writ Petition before this Court on 31.07.2008. It was listed before a Division Bench on 22.08.2008. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Division Bench was pleased to stay the Notification dated 25.04.2008. Immediately on 16.02.2009, the respondent No. 3, Mr. Suraj Bhan Meena filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacationing the ex-parte stay order. On 25.02.2009, the case was listed again before the learned Division Bench and the learned Division Bench directed that the matter be placed for hearing on 16.03.2009, and continued the interim direction till the next date. Subsequently, on 27.02.2009 respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan also filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. When the case was listed on 16.03.2009 before the learned Division Bench, the learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Division Bench adjourned the case and observed that it will hear the case on maintainability on the next date. On 13.04.2009, again the matter was listed before the learned Division Bench. However, while continuing the interim order, it directed the matter to be listed in the last week of April, 2009. Finally on 27.04.2009, the learned Division Bench heard the parties about the maintainability of the writ petition and directed the office to place the petition before a learned Single Bench. It further observed, "Previous order-sheet further shows that operation of this Notification was stayed on earlier date of hearing which continued till today. In this view of the matter, till the matter comes up before the learned Single Judge, operation of the impugned order would continue to be stayed which would still be considered by the learned Single Judge as and when the matter comes up before him." Consequently, the case was listed before a learned Single Bench of this Court on 13.05.2009. The parties pointed out to the Court that in other cases, namely Ajay Singh Chittora and Hanuman Singh Bhati, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the seniority list. They further pointed out that against the said judgment one Gajendra Singh has filed an appeal and the appeal is likely to be listed on 22.05.2009. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed the counsel to produce the judgment of the learned Single Bench, and the interim order passed by the learned Division Bench, if any. Meanwhile, the interim order was directed to be continued. The case came up for hearing on 22.05.2009. While the counsel for the petitioners did submit the copy of the judgment of the Single Judge dated 04.03.2009, he could not submit the interim order passed by the learned Division Bench as the Special Appeal was to be taken by the learned Division Bench on 25.05.2009. While the respondents contended that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India, 2007 AIR(SC) 71 and by the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal and Ors., 2008 3 SCC 672 , the counsel for the petitioners contested this position. The Court directed that the matter be listed on 26.05.2009. However, when the case was listed on 26.05.2009, the learned Single Judge recused himself from the case. Hence, this case before this Bench.