The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea which challenged an interim order of the Uttarakhand High Court which deleted certain respondents from the array of parties while issuing notice in a case. The plea before the High Court pertains to an inquiry being conducted on the orders Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttarakhand for the alleged ‘illegal’ appointment of 396 employees...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea which challenged an interim order of the Uttarakhand High Court which deleted certain respondents from the array of parties while issuing notice in a case.
The plea before the High Court pertains to an inquiry being conducted on the orders Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttarakhand for the alleged ‘illegal’ appointment of 396 employees and officers in the Legislative Assembly during the period between 2001 and 2022 by the then government and officers. On January 10, the High Court had issued an order; deleting certain respondents while issuing notice in the plea.
When the taken was up for hearing, a Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed its opinion that there wasn’t any need for notice to be issued to unnecessary parties.
“How can you make so many respondents like this? MLA, MP, CM, you can't do this!”, the Court remarked. “And you can't ask for such prayers. They are not necessary parties”, the Bench added.
The Court further stated that it is the Bench’s decision to issue notice to relevant parties only in Public Interest Litigation petitions.
“In PILs, it is the discretion of the court regarding whom to issue notice”.
When Advocate on Record Ankur Yadav for the petitioner stated those parties were involved in the illegal-appointment case, this is what the court said:
“You may ask anything under the sky. It doesn't mean that we should grant it”. The Bench further noted that the High Court had not dismissed the plea but had served notice to two respondents in the matter.
On these grounds, the court refused to entertain the petition. “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Relying on the expert committee’s findings, the plea stated that several appointments were made on the basis of the direct recruitment in the Vidhan Sabha in violation of the practice and procedure as per the law such as not publishing advertisements for ad-hoc appointments and not conducting competitive exams.
Case Title: Baij Nath Versus Union Of India And Ors | Diary No. 16550-2023