IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.         of 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

        Prasad Bhalchandra Vaidya,                        Petitioner     

         Advocate ,

        Behind Hotel Vishwamitra,

         Ramnagar,

         Latur  413531

                    Vs

1.       The Union of India

          Through Secretary,

          Ministry of Law and Justice,

          Govt. of India,

          Shastri Bhawan,

        New Delhi – 110001.

 

2.       Supreme Court of India,

          Through Secretary General,

          Supreme  Court Building,

          Bhagwan Dass Road,

           New Delhi – 110001      

    3        Chief Justice,             

       Bombay High Court,

        Mumbai                                                Respondents

 

 

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE SECTION 52 (b) OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 AS WELL AS ORDER IV, RULE 5, 6 AND 10 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966 AS ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 

The humble petition of the Petitioners above named;

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

 

1) That Petitioner had filled writ petition challenging order and judgment of Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal dated 07/02/1999. The petition was originally filed before original side of the High Court. The matter was listed before Single Bench and Court directed advocate for Petitioner to file additional sets of his petition. The petition was listed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench passed order to transfer to Appellate side of High Court and accordingly petition was listed before the Division Bench of High Court. The Division Bench of High Court heard counsel for the Petitioner and admitted the matter by its order dated 07/09/1999.

The matter was listed for final hearing on 16/04/2003 and without giving any information to the Petitioner Advocate for the Petitioner argued that matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the Single .The Court passed following order:-

That Registry of High Court listed petitioners petition for final hearing in the month of December 2006 and thereafter matter was continuously listed for final hearing.

That Petitioner filed civil application to amend his petition and the petition and civil application was listed before Single Bench dated 07/02/2008 .The matter was heard in the absence of Petitioner and Hon’ble Court passed following

Club this petition with W.P. 6550

However Hon’ble Court has not mentioned any reason as why petitioner’s petition was clubbed with W.P. 6550 of 2006.

2) That Petitioner has received a letter from the Deputy Registrar of High Court who informed him to submit two additional sets of his petition along with civil application. The learned Deputy Registrar by this letter informed Petitioner that W.P. 6550 of 2006 was listed before Full Bench of the High Court however he did not informed as why W.P. 6550 of 2006 was listed before the Full Bench. Writ Petition bearing number W.P. 6550 of 2006 was listed before the Full Bench on 30/03/2008 but matter was not heard on that day.

The matter was listed again on 30/04/2008 and Petitioner was asked by telephone to appear for hearing and Petitioner was present for without knowing the term of reference. The Petitioner although requested the Associates of the Court to allow him to argue his matter but he was restrained by Lawyers and the Court passed order without giving ample opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was surprised when he found his name in the appearances and it was strange when he found name Respondent’s missing in the order when in fact Advocate Mr. I.A. Saiyed who was present for hearing on that day .Petitioner came to know term of reference only after reading order dated 30/04/2008.

That during pendency of the Petition Petitioner had submitted several applications under RTI Act 2005 to know the term of reference and reasons as why his Petition was transferred to single but he has not given proper information by the Public Information Officer and even Appellate Authority has also failed to protect Petitioners statutory rights under RTI Act 2005.

3) That Petitioner Petition was listed before Single Bench in 10/06/2010 and subsequently on dated 23/07/2010 and Hon’ble Court passed order and took written notes of arguments on record  and kept matter for pronouncement of judgment on August 13,2010 however due pendency of Civil Application judgment was differed . Petitioner requested the Court to allow him to amend and Court allowed him to amend his petition by its order dated 24/06/2011 .Petitioner thereafter amended his Petition. Petitioner’s petition was listed for hearing on 27/07/2012 and subsequently on dated 09/08/2012 and 30/08/2012. Petitioner informed the Court that he has already filed written notes of arguments and turned attention of the Court towards the orders of Court by which his written notes of arguments were taken on record.

 That Hon’ble Court passed order and took cognizance of his written notes of arguments along with additional notes of argument presented on that day by its order dated 09/08/2012. The matter was listed for final hearing on 30/08/2012 and Court directed Advocate Respondent to submit his written notes arguments.

Thereafter Advocate Respondent submitted his written notes of argument to writ petition section and provided copy to the Petitioner.

The matter was listed final hearing on 02/04/2014 .The matter was heard by the Single Bench and during hearing Petitioner turned attention of the Court towards orders by which petitioners written notes of arguments were taken on record by the Court. The Advocate for Respondent also requested the Court to pass appropriate in the light of the written notes of arguments submitted by both the Parties. However Hon’ble directed Petitioner to submit summery of his arguments and assured him that he will pass final order and judgment in the light of written notes of arguments submitted by both the parties. The matter was again listed for final hearing and to dismay of Petitioner Court heard only few arguments and suddenly passed order without giving full opportunity of hearing and by ignoring his own order dated 02/04/2014 and by ignoring preliminary objection on jurisdiction of single bench to hear his petition mentioned in his written notes of arguments. The learned Judge ignored basic objection to the hearing of his petition by the Single Bench and also questions related to the interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in TMA Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka in respect of whether getting selected through selection committee constituted by University is mandatory for teaching staff in private Engineering Colleges ? The second was related to appointment of Principal by College with the approval of University by neglecting basic qualification for the Post of Principal by All India Council For Technical Education and even by the University of Mumbai. The other question in such whether termination order issued by person whose appointment is void ab initio can be declared as null and void.

4) That Petitioner wrote an application to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee in the Month of May 2014 (received by SCLSC on 12 May 2014). However Supreme Court Legal Committee has not given me reply for more than 4 to 5 months and I was compelled to file petition through Advocate. Petitioner had taken a loan for hiring a lawyer. The Supreme Court has made Rules in 2013 which has made almost impossible for those who wish to appear in person since such person has to appear before the Registrar and must satisfy Registrar that he is able to assist the Court If a person fails to prove it the Supreme Court has to refer the matter to the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee. Petitioner wrote an application under RTI Act but I got vague reply from the SCLSC. Petitioner had filled appeal against the Public Information officer but Appellate Authority gave decision after expiry of time period under RTI Act 2005.The decision of the Appellate Authority is vague and allowed PIO to hide information. The functioning of SCLSC is doubtful since they are not maintaining online record. The delay in my petition is because of SCLSC only.

Petitioner had attempted to file petition through E filling but I found that the Software is too much complicated and is not accepting the SBI ATM card. I have used SBI card for filling RTI application on Government of India website. This is another reason of delay in filing of the petition. Petitioner had informed Supreme Court Officers regarding the problems but I have not received proper solution. Petitioners Special Leave Petition was listed for hearing on 06.01.2015 and came to be dismissed without quoting even single reason for dismissal even before issuance of the notice and without going into substantial question of law referred in the Petition.

5) That Maharashtra Assembly has passed a Law titled as Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letter Patents) Act, 1986. The constitutional validity of the said of Law was challenged before the Bombay High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court. That Hon’ble Supreme Court heard question of validity of the said law in Jamshed Guzdar Vs State of Maharashtra by its judgment dated 11/01/2005.

The Bombay High Court was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the law and was expected to transfer all writ Petitions pending before Single Bench to the Division Bench but Bombay High Court ignored the law and kept matters pending before Single. The attitude of High Court administration compelled Government to amend the provisions of law against its will.

Grounds

1) That Maharashtra Assembly has passed a Law titled as Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letter Patents) Act, 1986. The constitutional validity of the said of Law was challenged before the Bombay High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court. That Hon’ble Supreme Court heard question of validity of the said law in Jamshed Guzdar Vs State of Maharashtra by its judgment dated 11/01/2005.

Section 2 of Maharashtra Assembly has passed a Law titled as Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letter Patents) Act, 1986 reads as under:-

2. Writ Petitions, etc, in the High Court to be heard by Division Bench. –

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any instrument have the force of law, every application for the issue of any direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and every application invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 or Article 228 of the Constitution of India, pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, on the date of commencement of this Act, or filed on or after the said date, whether the matter in dispute is or has arisen in Greater Bombay or outside Greater Bombay, shall be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Provided that, the High Court may, by rules made after previous publication and with the previous approval of the State Government prescribed that such of that application referred to above, arising in Greater Bombay or outside Greater Bombay, as may be specified in the rules, may be heard and disposed of by a single Judge appointed by the Chief Justice.

The High Court was bound to transfer all writ Petitions to Division Bench as per Section 2 but failed to transfer writ petitions to Division Bench.

The question is whether High Court has authority to ignore provisions of the law when constitutional validity of the said law is already decided and law is declared as valid and answer is negative.

Copy of Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letter Patents) Act, 1986 is marked and annexed as Annexure-A

Copy of Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letter Patents) (Amendment) Act, 2008 is marked and annexed as Annexure-B.

2) There are several questions arises after the judgment of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka in 2002.The Supreme Court observed in TMA Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka as under

Private Unaided Non-Minority Educational Institutions

48. Private education is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing segments of post-secondary education at the turn of the twenty-first century. A combination of unprecedented demand for access to higher education and the inability or unwillingness of government to provide the necessary support has brought private higher education to the forefront. Private institutions, with a long history in many countries, are expanding in scope and number, and are becoming increasingly important in parts of the world that relied almost entirely on the public sector.

49. Not only has demand overwhelmed the ability of the governments to provide education, there has also been a significant change in the way that higher education is perceived. The idea of an academic degree as a "private good" that benefits the individual rather than a "public good" for society is now widely accepted. The logic of today's economics and an ideology of privatization have contributed to the resurgence of private higher education, and the establishing of private

institutions where none or very few existed before.

50. The right to establish and administer broadly comprises of the following rights:-

(a) to admit students:

(b) to set up a reasonable fee structure:

(c) to constitute a governing body;

(d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and

(e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees.

Following are the questions arise out of judgment of Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation Vs State Karnataka:-

a) Whether Private Unaided Engineering Colleges can appoint teaching staff of their own choice?

b) What is meaning of authority to appoint teaching staff of own choice?

c) Whether University selection committee or University approval is essential for teaching staff of Private Unaided Engineering Colleges for confirmation of services of teaching staff?

d)Whether University can approve a person as Principal who is not qualified as per AICTE qualification criteria and even qualification criteria by University by its circular.

3) That Petitioner has challenged provisions of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules by which writ petitions arising out of order and judgment of University and College Tribunal were placed before the Single Bench on following grounds:-

a)That University and College Tribunal is constituted under Maharashtra University Act 1994. Maharashtra University Act 1994 is a law passed by Maharashtra legislature. The employees of all Universities constituted under Maharashtra University Act 1994 are getting salary as per Maharashtra Government norms and their services are protected as per provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Therefore employees of all Universities constituted under Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 are deemed to be Government employees. The employees of Government Engineering College and employees of colleges constituted by local bodies like Bombay Municipal Corporation are excluded have to file their grievances before Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act 1986. Government Engineering colleges and colleges established by local bodies are affiliated to the respective Universities constituted under Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 and all Engineering colleges including Government Engineering, colleges run by local bodies are recognized by All India Council for Technical Education. The writ petitions arising out of order of Administrative Tribunals are placed before the Division Bench but petitions arising out of decision of University and College Tribunal are placed before the single Bench. This is clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Bombay High Court has equated University and College Tribunal with Industrial Court and school tribunal constituted under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Trade Practices Act 1971, Maharashtra employees of Private School (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act 1977 respectively. The appointment procedure of President and members is given under appropriate law. By applying the principles of interpretation of statutes it appears that a person who is rank of Civil Judge Senior can work as a Presiding Officer of School Tribunal and a person who is of the rank of District Judge can work as President of Industrial Tribunal. The person who is or has been Judge of High Court is only eligible for the post of Presiding Officer of University and College Tribunal. The eligibility criteria of President of Administrative Tribunals constituted under Administrative Tribunal is same as that of Presiding Officer of University and College Tribunal constituted under Maharashtra Universities Act 1994.Therefore petitions arising out of orders of University and College Tribunal be heard and disposed by the Division Bench of High Court.

b) That Administrative Tribunals are constituted as per procedure given in Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The Parliament is empowered to make a law for constitution of Tribunal for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and condition of service appointed to public services and post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by Government of India. The Service conditions of employees are governed by the Rules of appropriate state Government. The state Government is empowered to constitute the forum for filing grievances of the employees of the State Government. The State Government is also empower to constitute forum for the employees of local and other authorities excluding those authorities which are directly or indirectly under Government of India. The provision under Article 323 A (1) empowers the Parliament to constitute Tribunal for the employees of local or other authorities takes away right of State Government to constitution of Tribunal. Therefore Article 323 A (1) is unconstitutional.

4) The important question is whether High Court Judge can pass order in the name of interest of students while accepting that termination order is bad at law and also set aside judgment and order of University Tribunal or lower Court. The Supreme Court and many High Courts have also evolved principles “No work no pay” .Whether Supreme Court has authority to pronounce principles like “No work no pay ” ?.

The answer to this question is negative. The Constitution makers have defined fundamental rights in chapter III of the Constitution very wisely and these rights speak about individual rights and certain rights are conferred upon minority peoples. The Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala in 1973 declared the doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court Judges declared Part III of the Constitution of India as a part of Basic Structure of the Constitution .The High Court is bound to protect rights conferred upon every citizen and even non citizen guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court Judges respectively Mr. Justice Shelat and Mr. Justice Grover defined basic structure (in summery  )(Reference Book, Publisher- Butterworths Wadhava-Lexis Nexsis:-Nani Palkhivala- Court Room Genius –Author Soli Sorabji and Arvind P Datar – page No.132,133) as under :-

(I) The Supremacy of the Constitution;

(II)The Republican and Democratic form of Government and Sovereignty of the country;

(III) Secular and federal character of the constitution;

(IV)Demarcation of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary;

(V) The dignity of the individuals secured by the various freedoms and basic rights in Part III and mandate to built welfare State in Part IV

5) That it appears that Special Leave Petitions are largely filed which are arising out of order passed by the High Court in all kinds of matters (First Appeal/Second Appeal/Writ Petitions/Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution). There is procedure for aggrieved party to approach the Supreme Court by way of filing of Appeals provided under Article 132 or 133 of the Constitution of India. The party which is aggrieved by the decision of the High Court has to file a petition before the High Court setting grounds as why he is willing to file appeal against judgment and order of the High Court. The High Court is bound to hear the petition and either High Court has to allow petition or reject the petition .If the petition is allowed High Court administration is bound to issue certificate of fitness to such party which has applied for certificate by way of Petition. The procedure   for filing petition along with format and also format of certificate is prescribed under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960.

The Copy of format of Petition under Bombay High Court Appellate Side is marked and annexed and marked as Annexure-C

The Copy of format of certificate to be issued after hearing petition for to allow him to file appeal against order and judgment of High Court under Bombay High Court Appellate Side is marked and annexed Annexure-D

It appears that many matters are heard finally at the admission stage and orders are orally dictated. It appears that some matters are admitted on prima facie verification .It is expected that Courts have to hear the matter and pronounce date of judgment in the matter so that parties may get time to prepare for filing petitions requesting High Court to allow him to file appeal under Article 132,133 of the Constitution of India. In petitioners case Learned Judge failed to provide ample opportunity of hearing which is violation of principles of natural justice and also has not granted time to file petition for issuance of certificate to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. The High Court is solely responsible for petitioner’s petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

It is responsibility of High Court and Supreme Court to protect fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. The other fact is that although Supreme Court Judges have discretion to allow him to file an appeal under Article 136 do not means that Supreme Court Judges have authority to dismiss petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India without quoting any reason for such dismissal.

That petitioner presumes that petitions under Article 136 of Constitution of India only when substantial question of law arises or such question have not be answered by the High Court although bound to answer in writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore Supreme Court has to answer substantial question of mentioned in the Special Leave Petitions.

Supreme Court observed as reported in;

State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors2011(8) SCC 670:-

“15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.

16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.”

Supreme Court observed as reported in;

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Others 2010 (12) SCALE 670

“149. The analysis of English and Indian Law clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a judgment of smaller strength but the judgment of a co-equal strength is also binding on a Bench of judges of co-equal strength.”

The Supreme Court failed has not taken cognizance of decision of larger Bench and even Learned Judge of High Court while disposing petitioner’s petition clearly ignored judgment of larger bench in TMA Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka.

6) That Supreme Court and Some High Court have set principle of “No work Pay ” in cases dealing with the termination of the employees. These principles are against fundamental right conferred on every person (citizen as well as no citizen) to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The fact is that a person (employee) who is aggrieved by the illegal termination order approaches the Courts, Tribunal for Redressal of his grievances arise out of illegal termination. The person enjoy special position in the society because of services and get many benefits like getting ration on credit and respect in the society. The illegal termination which arises out of ill mind set of employer or authorities who enjoy unlimited powers or those who illegally restrains employees from doing their job. The person to whom termination order is issued loses a good chance in respect of marriage since he or she will get better partner he or she could if he or she would have been employed. The principle of not to reinstate employee by Courts is also against principles set under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court has only two probabilities either to upheld termination order or to set aside termination order and in case where termination order is set aside the court is bound to reinstate the employee unless the employee already employed some other place.

This principle encourages the employers to terminate services at whims and will and on other such employee has either to accept termination order however illegal it may be because of principles set by the Court. These principles takes dignity of employees guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Article 21 of Constitution is part and parcel of the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India. The Legislature cannot make law which takes away liberty guaranteed by Constitution of India under Article as the same is part and parcel Basic Structure of Constitution. The principle is clearly against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala .The principle allows employer to isolate the employees and disturb their privacy and liberty for his personal interest by way of issuing termination order to deter the other employees for his personal gain without following due process of law.

The employer has right to terminate services of any employee by following procedure established under appropriate law. The Judges cannot issue suo moto termination and cannot decide fitness of person for particular post unless proved by the employer. The Court has to check eligibility criteria set by the regulatory authorities and once it is proved that employee is eligible and termination order is bad at law court has no option but to reinstate employee.

The Court is bound to restore the dignity which an employee lost because of illegal termination. However in case petition the High Court while deciding his writ petition on one hand declared termination order bad at law and on other hand declared him unfit to teach engineering college students. The College management has authority to issue termination even on the day of joining the college on the ground they feel appropriate by following due process of law. The Judges of High Court are not experts in all fields and they are only to check eligibility criteria set by the regulators at the time of appointment of the employee.

Supreme Court observed as reported in;

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India as follows

“The long years of the freedom struggle inspired by the dynamic spiritualism of Mahatma Gandhi and in fact the entire cultural and spiritual history of India formed, the background against which these rights were enacted and consequently, these rights were, conceived by the    constitution-makers not in a narrow  limited sense but in   their widest sweep, for the aim and objective was to build a new social order where “man will not be a mere plaything in the hands of the State  or a few  privileged persons   but there will be full scope and opportunity for him to achieve the maximum development of his personality and the dignity of the individual will be fully assured”.

Hon Supreme Court in civil appeal no 4147 of 2003 V.C. Banaras Hindu University & Ors. Vs Shrikant(V.C. Banaras Hindu University and others v. Shrikant 2006 (7) SCJ 396 = 2006 (5) Supreme 336 = J.T. 2006 (11) SC 578 = AIR 2006 SC 2304 = 2006 (6) SCALE 66) says that

Here again, this Court opined that Article 14 requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. It was furthermore held:

"Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the color and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness."

The Supreme Court is therefore bound by the judgment of Constitution Bench in respect of reinstatement of employee in case termination order is declared as bad at law.

The principles “No work no pay” is unconstitutional since the employee who lost his job due illegal termination cannot accept other job as he has claimed his right on the job which he lost due to illegal termination. In case he accepts other job he will automatically lose his right on the job which he lost due to illegal termination. The Court is not allowing him to do job while keeping claim on job which he lost due to illegal termination one hand and on other hand Court is not paying him salary by evolving principles like “No work no pay” It means that Court is indirectly allowing those whose intention to harass the employee by keeping unemployed and by keeping him from earning money and by that to harass This is the policy of employers who are financially sound than the employees to isolate the employees to to harass them by means of illegal termination They are so powerful that they manage in such manner that the employee will not get proper job anywhere in the locality but Supreme Court and High Courts have protected their intention to harass employees became truth . The principles take away liberty of employee to live his life with dignity as assured by Article under Article 21 Constitution of India.

7) That present Petitioner raised a question during hearing of his petition in his petition bearing number W.P. 4518 of 1999 that what is the status of termination order signed by person as authority a person whose appointment is illegal and therefore null void? The Court has not answered the question in its order. The Petitioner relied upon judgment of Constitution Bench in Chandra Mohan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court hold

“In the result, we hold that the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules providing for the recruitment of district judges are constitutionally void and, therefore, the appointments made there under were illegal.”

Parliament had amended Article 233 and added Article 233 A .To save judgments and orders passed by those whose appointment was declared as void in Mohan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.

The same principles must be applicable in respect termination order signed by Dr. Surendra kumar who was not eligible and even was not qualified but got the post due corrupt practices of selection committee who ignored the AICTE and Bombay University’s eligibility criteria.The appointment was illegal and void and therefore termination order signed by the Dr. Surendra kumar is void and Bombay High Court cannot pass order which restrains me from enjoying services from the date of termination to the date of at least judgment of the Court. The Court has no authority to amend eligibility criteria with retrospective effect but unfortunately court has protected corrupt practices by avoiding to write his opinion on my arguments in respect of appointment of Dr. Surendra kumar as Principal.

7) As per the provision of Article 145 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed “The Supreme Court Rules, 2013” (hereinafter referred as ‘SCR 1950’), and with the approval of the President of India the said Rules came into existence in place of Supreme Court Rules, 1966”

The Rule 1 of Order IV of ‘SCR 2013’ provides as follows:

ADVOCATES

I (a) Subject to the provisions of these rules an advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) as amended shall be entitled to appear before the Court:

Provided that an advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act. 1961 (25 of 1961). for less than one year. shall be entitled to mention mailers in Court for the limited purpose of asking for time, date, adjournment and similar such orders but shall not be entitled to address the Court for the purpose of any effective hearing:

Provided further that the Court may, if it thinks desirable to do so for any reason, permit any person to appear and address the Court in a particular case.

(b) No advocate other than the Advocate-on-record for a party shall appear. plead and address the Court in a mailer unless he is instructed by the advocate-on-record or permitted by the Court.

(c) In petitions/appeals received from jail or a mailer filed by a party-in- person or where a party-in person as respondent is not represented by an Advocate-on-Record. the Secretary General/Registrar may require the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to assign an Advocate. who may assist the Court on behalf of such person:

Provided that whenever a party wants to appear and argue the case in person. he/she shall first file an application along with the petition seeking permission to appear and argue in person. The application shall indicate reasons as to why he/she cannot engage an Advocate and wants to appear and argue in person, and if he is willing to accept an Advocate. who can be appointed for him by the Court. Such application shall. in the first instance be placed before the concerned Registrar to interact with the party-in-person and give opinion by way of office report whether the party-in-person will be able to give necessary assistance to the Court for proper disposal of the mailer or an Advocate may be appointed as Amicus Curiae. If the application is allowed by the Court then only the party-in-person will be permitted to appear and argue the case in person.”

The Rule 1 to 5 of Order XLVII of ‘SCR 2013’ provides as follows:

REVIEW

I. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule I of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

The application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under the Rules.

2. An application for review shall be by a petition, and shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review.

3. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. The Court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party. An application for review shall as far as practicable be circulated to the same Judge or Bench of Judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.

4. Where on an application for review the Court reverses or modifies its former decision in the case on the ground of mistake of law or fact, the Court, may, if it thinks fit in the interests of justice to do so, direct the refund to the petitioner of the court-fee paid on the application in whole or in part, as it may think fit.

5. Where an application for review of any judgment and order has been made and disposed of, no further application for review shall be entertained in the same matter.

The Rules related to party in Person are especially ultra virus to provisions Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. The Constitution makers and especially Dr. Babasaheb Abedkar called Article 32 of the Constitution of India as soul of the Constitution .Article 32 of the Constitution gave a fundamental right to Citizens to file writ petition in case violation of their fundamental rights .The Constitution under this Article has not imposed any restrictions on filing of grievances before the Supreme Court. The State has no power to impose restrictions on filing of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The judiciary is not a state within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore has no authority to impose restrictions on fundamental rights conferred on citizens and non citizens guaranteed under Part of the Constitution which is part and parcel of Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.

The Rules related to review takes away liberty of aggrieved parties to submit their oral say before the Court which are guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution .

In Petitioners Special Leave Petition Supreme Court Judges dismissed his petition without quoting even one reason .The order itself is biased and excellent example of non application of mind of Supreme Court Judges since they clearly ignored substantial question of law referred by the petitioner in his petition. The Rules related to Review took away his liberty to explain those grounds before the Court since his termination was no simple but a case of bonded teacher whose services were terminated before completion of contract period mentioned in bond taken by the Institute and College authorities demanded Rs. 50 thousand from petitioner and because of it he has not received experience certificate and also lost good job opportunity and on other hand lost all other benefits like purchasing good house in Navi Mumbai area at far lower cost than today’s market price.

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

 

a)       Issue an appropriate Writ/Direction/Order declaring and holding that the The Rule 1 to 5 of Order XLVII and Rules 1 of Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013  are ultra virus to the Constitution of India and the same be quashed ; And/ Or

 

b)     To hold and declare principles of no pages no work evolved by Supreme Court and High Court as ultra virus to the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

c)    To hold and declare that Private Unaided Engineering Colleges have right to recruit teaching staff of their own choice and there is no need for teaching staff in these colleges to get selected from University selection committee and there is no need of approval of University to become permanent staff of such private College.

d)     To hold declare that High Court and Supreme Court Judges cannot sit as experts and can decide only question related to the legality termination of termination order passed by the Authority. To hold and declare that once termination is declared as illegal Courts are bound to reinstate such employee with Full back as part of protection of Fundamental Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

        To hold and declare “No work no pay” principle is unconstitutional being inconsistent to the provisions of Articles 21 of the Constitution of India.     

e)      To call record and proceeding of Writ Petition W.P. 4518 of 1999 from Bombay High Appellate Side Principal Bench at Mumbai

f)      To call record and proceeding of SLP(C ) 21608 of 2014 (Prasad Bhalchandrarao Vaidya Vs Principal Terna Engineering College Navi Mumbai.    

g)     Pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.