“Supreme Court Questions High Court’s Jurisdiction in Declaring Rule Ultra Vires Without Specific Pleading”

Share:
ultra review complaint guidelines land age property Acquisition Developers firm Bail Marriage Property Town Eyewitness child Custody burden Reasonable LPG evidence Selection Police Jurisdiction Evidence FIR eyewitness Certificate Land Judges Sex property Lands Evidence Jail Lands Motor Accident Evidence Judgment property Constitutional Child Murder employee SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1987 bail evidence claims pay diploma vidhan insurance magistrate 498 guilty 65 notice village ews guidelines Date of Decision: October 17, 2023 MRS. KALYANI RAJAN  vs INDRAPRASTHA medical APOLLO HOSPITAL  & ORS.          admission employers investigation judicial probationary mca tax kill bail liberty Police bail divorce certificate rape proper bail sexual violence acquittal police sale workers jurisdiction

On 1 Sep. 2023, the Supreme Court of India found fault with the High Court of Orissa for declaring a rule ultra vires (beyond its legal power or authority) when the specific pleadings to challenge it were not present.

The case, Union of India & Others vs. Manjurani Routray & Others, revolves around the promotion of Manjurani Routray, a Principal System Analyst (Scientist D) in the National Informatics Centre, Cuttack. She challenged her non-promotion to the post of ‘Scientist E,’ alleging that her juniors were promoted instead.

In  judgment, Justice J.K. Maheshwari observed, “In the given facts, there was no occasion for the High Court to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.” This remark was in light of the fact that Routray did not specifically challenge the vires of Rule 4(b) either before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or in her subsequent writ petition before the High Court.

The High Court, in its earlier judgment, declared Rule-4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology (Insitu promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998, invalid in law. This was despite Routray never explicitly challenging the legality of Rule 4(b).

The apex court further pointed out, “It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case.”

The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the High Court for further proceedings consistent with its observations.

Date of Decision: September 01, 2023

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.  vs MANJURANI ROUTRAY & ORS.   

                          

Download Judgment

Share: