ITEM NO. MM-9A                        COURT NO. 9                      SECTION XI  

                S U P R E M E    C O U R T    O F    I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)……/2010 CC 14694-14695/2010

(From the judgment and order dated 16/07/2010 in WP No. 1872/1986  of the High Court of U.P. at Lucknow)

State of U.P. & Ors.                 .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Neeraj Chaubey & Ors.        .... Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for permission to file SLP and prayer for interim relief and  office report )

Date: 16/09/2010   These Petitions were called on for mentioning today.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN  

For Petitioners(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shail K. Dwivedi, AAG Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Karunesh S. Pawar, Adv. Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.

                                      UPON being mentioned the Court made the following

                             O R D E R  

1

Permission to file SLPs is granted.

Taken on board.

State of U.P. and their officials aggrieved by the interim  

orders dated 16.07.2010 and 25.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.  

1872 of 1986 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,  

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow have filed the above SLPs.

W.P.  No.  1872  of  1986  was  filed  by  one  Dr.  Neeraj  

Chaubey  for  redressal  of  his  grievance  regarding  an  

advertisement  for  appointment  on  the  post  of  Assistant  

Professor.  In the said advertisement, the eligibility criteria was  

fixed as teaching experience of 7 years whereas according to  

the Statutory Rules, the teaching experience required is only 5  

years.  The aforesaid writ petition was not listed as per the  

directions  of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  which  

passed the impugned order.  The Registry of the High Court  

was directed to show cause as well as a cost of Rs. 2,000/-  

was also awarded on the Joint Registrar of the High Court.  In  

response to the aforesaid direction, one of the officials of the  

Registry  in  his  affidavit  highlighted  certain  problems  about  

want of space for keeping the court records, sitting space for  

2

officials and officers of the Registry.  Taking note of the said  

facts,  the  Division  Bench,  in  the  order  dated  16.07.2010,  

directed  the  State  Government  to  submit  a  Status  Report  

about sanctioning of funds for construction of new High Court  

Building Complex at  Gomati  Nagar,  Lucknow.  It  is  further  

seen  that  even  after  filing  of  Status  Report  and  affidavit  

highlighting  the  steps  taken,  by  the  impugned  order  dated  

25.08.2010,  the  same  Division  Bench  directed  the  Cabinet  

Secretary, the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary (Law),  

State  of  U.P.  and  Member  Secretary,  Planning  Commission  

and representative of Ministry of Law and Justice not below  

the rank of Joint Secretary, Government of India to appear in  

person along with the records on the next date of hearing on  

20.09.2010. Questioning both the above said directions, State  

of U.P. filed these SLPs.  

Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the  

petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for  

Oudh Bar Association.

Though Oudh Bar  Association  is  not  a  party  in  these  

SLPs, but considering the importance of the issue, the said  

3

Bar Association intends to file appropriate petition before the  

High Court for construction of the new High Court Building  

Complex at Lucknow. We heard their counsel also.  

At the outset, we may point out that directions regarding  

construction of new High Court building and early sanction of  

required  funds for  execution of  the  work cannot  be  faulted  

with.   In  fact,  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad,  

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow needs more spacious building as  

early  as  possible.   However,  we  are  concerned  about  the  

procedure  adopted  by  the  Division  Bench  issuing  such  

directions  in  an unconnected  matter  treating  it  as  PIL  and  

keeping the issue before the same Bench.   

In this regard, it is brought to our notice that the Full  

Bench decision of  the same High Court  of  Allahabad,  while  

answering the reference made to a larger bench in W.P. No.  

34197 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Dixit & Ors. vs. State of U.P. &  

Ors.)  decided on 13.09.2010, dealt  with the issues involved  

herein.

The High Court had taken note of various judgments of  

this Court including State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, AIR  

4

1982 SC 1198; Inder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996)  

6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand & Ors.,  

(1998)  1 SCC 1,  R. Rathinam vs.  State by DSP,  District  

Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai & Anr., (2000) 2  

SCC 391 and Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC  

294 and various judgments of High Courts and came to the  

conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster.  The  

Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the  

matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows  

not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3)  of  

Section  51  of  the  States  Re-organisation  Act,  1956,  but  

inheres in him in the very nature of things.  The Chief Justice  

enjoys  a  special  status and he  alone can assign work to  a  

Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench  

or Full Bench.  He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be  

heard by which Bench.  If the Judges were free to choose their  

jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever  

case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the  

court would collapse and the judicial work of the court would  

cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering  

5

for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case.  The Court  

held  that  a  Judge  or  a  Bench  of  Judges  can  assume  

jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if  the  

case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice.  Strict  

adherence  of  this  procedure  is  essential  for  maintaining  

judicial  discipline  and proper  functioning  of  the  court.   No  

departure from this procedure is permissible.

In case an application is filed and the Bench comes to the  

conclusion  that  it  involves  some  issues  relating  to  public  

interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a Public Interest  

Litigation  but  the  court  has  its  option  to  convert  it  into  a  

Public Interest Litigation and ask the Registry to place it before  

a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as per the  

Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the Chief Justice  

but  the Bench cannot convert  itself  into a PIL and proceed  

with the matter itself.  

In  view  of  the  decision  of  the  Full  Bench of  the  High  

Court of Allahabad, which we hold is in accordance with law  

and in consonance with the rules and procedure, Mr. Harish  

N.  Salve,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  petitioner-State  of  

6

U.P., seeks permission to move an application in respect of the  

matter in issue before the Chief Justice of the High Court for  

appropriate  directions.   We  permit  the  State  to  move  such  

application.   The  impugned  order  directing  the  officials  to  

appear before the Court on 20.09.2010 shall remain stayed.  

The  present  order  of  stay  shall  continue  till  further  orders  

being passed by the appropriate Bench dealing with the PIL  

after the orders of the Chief Justice.

Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Oudh Bar Association  

informed this  Court  that  the  Association  intends  to  file  an  

independent petition in respect of the matter in issue, namely,  

construction of High Court building.  We make it clear that the  

Bar Association is free to move such writ petition before the  

appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over PIL.   

The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

[Usha Bhardwaj]                                                            [Savita Sainani]   Court Master                                                                  Court Master

7