We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
And I really appreciate the explanations provided.
The 4th and 5th persons' petition will always be placed before the single judge hearing original matters. This single judge may then refer the petitions to DB for the sake of proprietary and convience.
The single judge could've also heard the matter and decide on merits herself if she thought WP4 and WP5 were not similar enough to the appeals pending before DB.
Read your HC's Rules, they will all say something similar in legalese.
After the results were declared, two writ petitions were filed (let's say WP 1 and WP 2). therefore appointments were withheld. An inquiry committee was formed headed by a retired High Court Judge. the Inquiry basically says it found some irregularities but no undue favor and nothing serious. A third writ petition was filed (WP 3) to challenged the inquiry report. All three writ petitions were dismissed.) In these writ petitions the candidates selected in the exam are not impleaded). After the case was dismissed, the selected candidates were appointed as State civil Servants in April 2017.
In April 2017, three writ appeals were filed in the division bench against the judgment (let's say WA 1, WA 2, & WA corresponding to the three dismissed writ appeals). However, the selected candidates were not appointed and their appointments were not interfered with or made sub-judice.
In August 2017, two more writ petitions were filed on the same subject in the court of a single Judge (Let's say WP 4 and WP 5). The single judge issued notice ex-parte made the appointments sub-judice while directing to implead all appointed candidates in the writ petitions WP 4 and WP 5. A new inquiry committee was formed under WP 4 headed by a retired civil servant. The committee reported various irregularities In the evaluation process (80% of the irregularity was that Supervisors did not sign on all answer scripts, the rest were totalling errors, overwriting etc.). No defects or infirmity were reported with regards to the candidates.
After this report (Second Inquiry report) was submitted, the Single Judge took note of the submission by some respondents that it cannot pass any order as the same subject was being heard in the Division Bench. Since both petitioners and subject were the same, these cases (WP 4 and WP 5) were thus transferred to the Division bench to be heard together with the writ appeals (WA 1, WA 2, and WA 3). The division bench was also reconstituted and the Single Judge was made a part of the Division Bench. The single judge authored the final judgment, setting aside the first inquiry report, the first judgment, quashing the exam, and terminating the selected candidates after three years of service (candidates were faultless), all in one go. (even though the irregularities were found only in the evaluation process, the written exam itself was quashed).
My question is when a single judge cannot pass an order, why were the new writ petitions even admitted?