U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and Ors.
EmailAppeal: I.A.No.2 of 2008
IN
Civil Appeal No.1604 of 2008
IN
Civil Appeal No.1604 of 2008
Petitioner: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
Respondent: Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and Ors.
Apeal: I.A.No.2 of 2008
IN
Civil Appeal No.1604 of 2008
IN
Civil Appeal No.1604 of 2008
Judges: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 2008
Head Note:
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 137 – Modification – Orders dated 22.2.2008 in CA No. 1604 of 2008 – In para 6, reference to Rule 8A of U.P. Government Servant Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 and holding up of its validity in M. Nagraj’s case, mentioned – Mistake discovered. Held that said sentence in which the constitutional validity of Rule 8(A) has already been upheld be deleted and para be replaced with modified para. (Paras 2, 3)
Article 137 – Modification – Orders dated 22.2.2008 in CA No. 1604 of 2008 – In para 6, reference to Rule 8A of U.P. Government Servant Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 and holding up of its validity in M. Nagraj’s case, mentioned – Mistake discovered. Held that said sentence in which the constitutional validity of Rule 8(A) has already been upheld be deleted and para be replaced with modified para. (Paras 2, 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [JT 2006 (9) SC 191] (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is an application for modification of our order dated 22nd of February 2008. In the application for modification, it has been alleged by the appellant that there was no occasion for this Court to decide the constitutional validity of Rule 8(A) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India reported in [JT 2006 (9) SC 191 ; 2006 (8) SCC 212]. It has been further alleged that the writ petitioners had never challenged the constitutional validity of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India in their writ petition.
2. We have heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the applicants/respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 7 and Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. In our order dated 22nd of February, 2008, we have made the following observations in paragraph 6 of the same which runs as under:
‘Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the decision of this Court in M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra) in which the constitutional validity of the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India and Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 has already been upheld, we are unable to agree with Mr.P.P.Rao that at the interim stage, there was any occasion for the High Court to grant the interim order in this pending writ application.’
3. It appears that there has been a mistake on our part when we said that the constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 has already been upheld in M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra). Considering this aspect of the matter, we direct that the sentence, viz. ‘in which the constitutional validity of Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 has already been upheld’ be deleted and the paragraph which has been noted herein above may be replaced with the following paragraph.
‘Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the decision of this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra) in which the constitutional validity of the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India has already been upheld, we are unable to agree with Mr. P.P. Rao, that at the interim stage there was any occasion for the High Court to grant interim order in this pending writ application’.
4. In paragraph 4, the words ‘Mr. Trivedi’ shall also be replaced by ‘Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi’.
5. Accordingly the order dated 22nd of February, 2008 is modified.
6. I.A.No. 2 of 2008 is thus disposed of.
7. The Registry is directed to issue necessary corrigendum.
1. This is an application for modification of our order dated 22nd of February 2008. In the application for modification, it has been alleged by the appellant that there was no occasion for this Court to decide the constitutional validity of Rule 8(A) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India reported in [JT 2006 (9) SC 191 ; 2006 (8) SCC 212]. It has been further alleged that the writ petitioners had never challenged the constitutional validity of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India in their writ petition.
2. We have heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the applicants/respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 7 and Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. In our order dated 22nd of February, 2008, we have made the following observations in paragraph 6 of the same which runs as under:
‘Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the decision of this Court in M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra) in which the constitutional validity of the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India and Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 has already been upheld, we are unable to agree with Mr.P.P.Rao that at the interim stage, there was any occasion for the High Court to grant the interim order in this pending writ application.’
3. It appears that there has been a mistake on our part when we said that the constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 has already been upheld in M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra). Considering this aspect of the matter, we direct that the sentence, viz. ‘in which the constitutional validity of Rule 8(A) of the UP Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 has already been upheld’ be deleted and the paragraph which has been noted herein above may be replaced with the following paragraph.
‘Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the decision of this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra) in which the constitutional validity of the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India has already been upheld, we are unable to agree with Mr. P.P. Rao, that at the interim stage there was any occasion for the High Court to grant interim order in this pending writ application’.
4. In paragraph 4, the words ‘Mr. Trivedi’ shall also be replaced by ‘Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi’.
5. Accordingly the order dated 22nd of February, 2008 is modified.
6. I.A.No. 2 of 2008 is thus disposed of.
7. The Registry is directed to issue necessary corrigendum.
