In Limine Dismissal Of SLP At Threshold Neither Constitutes Declaration Of Law Nor A Binding Precedent, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]
"The dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case"
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in-limine dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. In this case (State of Orissa vs. Dhirendra Sundar Das), the High Court had relied on a judgment delivered by it in another case, the SLP...
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in-limine dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution.
In this case (State of Orissa vs. Dhirendra Sundar Das), the High Court had relied on a judgment delivered by it in another case, the SLP filed against which was dismissed by the Apex Court. The respondent, while defending the judgment impugned in the present appeal which held that promotions could be given under the repealed OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, contended that it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Rejecting this argument, the bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra observed:
The dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case
In this case, the Orissa High Court had held that the 150 vacant Orissa Administrative Service Class – II posts for which recommendations were made in the year 2008, prior to the abolition of the OAS Class – II posts, and reconstitution of the Orissa Revenue Service cadre, be filled up under the OAS Class II Rules, 1978.
Allowing the appeal filed by the State, the Apex Court bench held that the direction of the Division Bench to appoint the contesting Respondents in the vacancies which had occurred in the abolished cadre, in accordance with the repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law, and liable to be set aside.
Read Judgment