High Court Refuses to Interfere With Discretionary Denial of Ad Interim Relief in LPA Jurisdiction

The Appellants, Ex-Servicemen (ESM) registered under a 2013 Coal Transport Scheme, challenged the 2026 Guidelines issued following a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 14 October 2025.

The 2026 Guidelines introduced clauses 2(c), 2(f), 3(a), and 3(c), which required applicants to be unemployed at the stage of "feasibility study" rather than at the later stage of "sponsorship," effectively rendering the Appellants (who sought alternative employment during the scheme's hiatus) ineligible.

The Appellants filed a writ petition and an application for interim stay. A learned Single Judge issued notice on the stay application but refused to grant ad interim relief on 22 June 2026.

The Appellants filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against that refusal.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to grant ad interim stay of the 2026 Guidelines pending a final response from the Respondents.

2. Whether the 2026 Guidelines contradicted the parent MoU of 2025 by shifting the requirement of "unemployment" to an earlier stage of the selection process.

The Court applied the principle of limited appellate interference in intra-court appeals (LPA), noting that such jurisdiction is warranted only where the order is "demonstrably erroneous or suffers from perversity," as established in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Scales Pvt Ltd.

The Court relied on Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple regarding the scope of LPA jurisdiction.

The court applied the standard tripartite test for interim relief—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—emphasizing that the grant of interim relief is a discretionary exercise under Article 226.

The Court reasoned that the LPA jurisdiction is not meant to substitute the Single Judge’s discretion with its own, particularly regarding ad interim orders where a reply is still awaited.

On merits, the Court found no prima facie case for the Appellants, as Clause 10 of the 2025 MoU explicitly required unemployment at the feasibility study stage, meaning the 2026 Guidelines were consistent with the parent MoU.

The Court rejected the "changing the rules of the game" argument, noting the guidelines were merely brought in line with the MoU.

Regarding balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the Court observed that the Appellants had already secured alternative employment and had no fundamental or vested legal right to the benefits of a specific executive scheme.

The High Court held that the 2026 Scheme is a fresh scheme distinct from the 2013 version, and the Appellants failed to meet the mandatory eligibility criteria.

The appeal was dismissed in limine, and the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed.