Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7724 OF 2012
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NO.17409 OF 2012)
SUJIT KUMAR LENKA & ORS. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
C.A.NO. 7725 OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.16631/2012
C.A.NO. 7727 OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.16634/2012
C.A.NO. 7726 OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.19643/2012
WITH AND
CONT.PET.(C)NO.339/2012 IN S.L.P.(C)NO.17409/2012
O R D E R
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides, including
the learned counsel appearing for the intervenors.
3. These appeals are directed against the
Page 1
2
judgment and order passed by the Orissa High
Court in Writ Appeal No.95 of 2012, dated 12.04.2012.
4. At the time of hearing of these appeals, Shri P.N.
Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants in the lead matter would invite our attention
to paragraphs 9 and 14 of the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court. In our opinion, those
paragraphs are the only relevant paragraphs which require
to be considered by us, and, therefore, those paragraphs
are extracted hereunder:
“9. Considering the aforesaid fact situation of the
matter and taking into consideration the rights of
the respondent-students and protecting the rights of
the appellants on equity, it would be appropriate for
this court to direct the committee to prepare a
combined merit ranking list of 45 in-service
candidates of 2012 and respondents-students and admit
them in the PG Course of the year 2012 on the basis
of their merit. We direct accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Xxx xxx xxx
14. In the result the writ appeals are allowed in
part to the extent indicate above directing the
P.G.Selection Committee to admit the respondents-
students in all these writ appeals in the P.G.
(Medical) Course for the year 2012 by allotting the
subject for which they are entitled as per the
combined ranking list to be prepared as per the
direction issued above.”
Page 2
3
A bare reading of these paragraphs would demonstrate
that the High Court, while disposing of the Writ Appeals,
had directed the State Government and its authorities to
prepare a combined merit ranking list of 45 in-service
candidates of 2012 and left over in-service candidates of
2011, on the basis of their merit. In our opinion, since
each academic year is a separate academic year, the High
Court could not have directed for preparation of a
combined merit ranking list of candidates for the year
2011 and 2012 and, therefore, we take exception to the
aforesaid observations made by the High Court.
5. In the result, while allowing these appeals, we direct
JUDGMENT
the State Government and its authorities, first to prepare
a merit ranking list of 45 in-service candidates of 2012
and allot them seats according to their merit and, if for
any reason, any seat or seats are left over after
accommodating in-service candidates of the year 2011,
those seats shall be allotted to the
candidates of the year 2011, purely on their
merit/(s). This exercise shall be completed by
Page 3
4
the State Government and its authorities within 15 days
from today and appropriate list be prepared, as directed.
6. If, for any reason, the intervenors have any other
grievance, they can espouse that grievance in the same
High Court.
7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the intervenors' plea. Applications for
intervention/impleadment are disposed of accordingly.
CONTEMPT PETITION(C)NO.339/2012 IN S.L.P.(C)NO.17409/2012:
In view of the orders passed in the above Civil
JUDGMENT
Appeals, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
Page 4
5
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 30, 2012
JUDGMENT
Page 5