Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.   

                          

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/01-Sep-2023_Manjurani_Vs_UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News