Boutique Litigation Law Firm - Retain Lawyers - Research based Law Firm - Complete legal services

Orders passed under Art. 142 cannot be treated as Precedent, Supreme Court

The SC on June 11, 2020 {NIRBHAY KUMAR & ORS. vs STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.} held that there is more than one reason for not accepting the claim of the petitioner. It was held that firstly, there has been specific order with regard to 133 candidates for not subjecting them to the physical test and directing their appointment without physical test which the Court had categorically held to be not treated as Precedent. It was held that the order when specifically held that it may not be treated as Precedent, no benefit can be claimed of the said order by the writ petitioner in the present writ petitions especially when otherwise the writ petitioners are not able to satisfy the Court that when they have either not undertaken the physical test or failed in the physical test, why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police at this stage.

It was observed by the Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M.R. Shah & Justice V. Ramasubramanian that the Court made it very clear that order of the Court regarding selection and appointment of 133 candidates are passed in peculiar background of litigation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 and the same shall not be treated as a Precedent.

In the present cases, the bunch of writ petitions had been filed in SC under Article 32 of Constitution of India by the petitioners claiming appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Bihar claiming parity with 133 candidates who were appointed under earlier Orders of the Supreme Court by subjecting them only to the Medical test and not subjecting them with the Physical test.

The Supreme Court earlier by order dated 01.11.2018 clearly indicated that in event the State of Bihar does not accede to the representation of applicants claiming similar relief to 133 candidates that shall not give rise to any proceedings in any of the Courts. The Supreme Court held that it is not persuaded to grant the relief in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution.

It was held that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions. All the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed by the SC.

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published