(Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, C.J. and Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, JJ.)
Salam Samarjeet Singh ______________________________ Petitioner;
v.
High Court of Manipur and Another _________________ Respondent(s).
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294 of 2015, decided on July 12, 2023
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. On 7 October 2016, there was a difference of opinion in the two Judge Bench which was hearing Writ Petition (Civil) No 294 of 2015 differed. The petition was placed before a three-Judge Bench on 10 August 2017, when the following order was passed:
“We have been apprised at the Bar by learned senior counsel appearing for both the sides that similar question of law has been referred to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court [(2013) 4 SCC 540].
In view of the above, let this matter be tagged with the same.”
2. The direction to place the case for hearing together with the reference to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court1 was in view of the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties that a similar question of law has been referred.
3. During the course of the hearing, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the following three questions would arise in the case:
1. Can executive instructions in the form of a resolution of the Full Court override statutory rules made under Article 234/309?
2. Can the criteria of cut of marks be introduced by a Full-Court Resolution without amending the rules after the written test is over without informing the successful candidate?
3. Whether such a course of action amounts to procedural fairness/unfairness?
4. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Manipur, submits that he would wish to raise certain other questions.
5. During the course of the hearing, it emerges from the submissions of counsel that a reference to the Constitution Bench along the lines in Tej Prakash Pathak is unnecessary since the issue which is referred to the Constitution Bench is not raised here. The difference of opinion between the two Judges would have to be resolved by a three-Judge Bench.
6. We accordingly direct the Registry to add the present case to the list of three-Judge Bench matters and seek direction on the administrative side for listing the petition before an appropriate Bench at an early date.
———
1 (2013) 4 SCC 540
