Chairman, Rajya Sabha, P. House & Anr. Vs. S.S. Sohoni & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8424 of 1997
With
C.A.No.558/1998
With
C.A.No.558/1998
Petitioner: Chairman, Rajya Sabha, P. House & Anr.
Respondent: S.S. Sohoni & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8424 of 1997
With
C.A.No.558/1998
With
C.A.No.558/1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 14, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
CONSTITUTION
Article 226 – Appointment challenged – Writ allowed – Appeal filed – During pendency, challenger sought retirement and resigna-tion from service – Same allowed and notified. Held that in view of the facts nothing survives in appeal.(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The first Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 8424 challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 2 – R.C. Tripathi who is the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1998. The High Court al-lowed the Writ Petition and the notification appointing the Respondent No. 2 was declared as void and non-est and the same was set aside holding that the first Respondent continues to hold the post of Secretary – General and the other Respondents in the Writ Petition were directed not to obstruct in the first Respondent continuing to discharge the functions of Secretary – General, Rajya Sabha. This order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals. In the meanwhile the first Respondent has applied for voluntary retirement on May 19, 1998 (from?) the service of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from June 15, 1998 with waiver of statu-tory notice period and he sought that he may be permitted to resign from the service in the Rajya Sabha from the said date i.e. June 15, 1998. This was acceded to by a letter communicated on June 11, 1998 and followed by a notification dated June 15, 1998. In the circumstances nothing survives in the appeals and the appeals stand disposed of as having become infructuous. It is made clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the case.
1. The first Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 8424 challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 2 – R.C. Tripathi who is the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1998. The High Court al-lowed the Writ Petition and the notification appointing the Respondent No. 2 was declared as void and non-est and the same was set aside holding that the first Respondent continues to hold the post of Secretary – General and the other Respondents in the Writ Petition were directed not to obstruct in the first Respondent continuing to discharge the functions of Secretary – General, Rajya Sabha. This order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals. In the meanwhile the first Respondent has applied for voluntary retirement on May 19, 1998 (from?) the service of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from June 15, 1998 with waiver of statu-tory notice period and he sought that he may be permitted to resign from the service in the Rajya Sabha from the said date i.e. June 15, 1998. This was acceded to by a letter communicated on June 11, 1998 and followed by a notification dated June 15, 1998. In the circumstances nothing survives in the appeals and the appeals stand disposed of as having become infructuous. It is made clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the case.
