'Clever Drafting' Cannot Resurrect Time-Barred Suits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Vexatious Plaint No Absolute Right To Choose Route For Religious Procession: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Police Restriction Acquittal In Section 498A IPC Case Does Not Bar Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act: Chhattisgarh High Court Calcutta High Court Refuses To Allow Amendment Introducing 'Date Of Knowledge' In Tenancy Dispute Allahabad High Court Rejects 'Attempt To Murder' Charge Citing Absence Of Grievous Injury And Fundamental Prosecution Flaws Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Temporary Acquisition Of Private Helipad, Orders Restoration Of Possession End Of IP Court Shopping?': Delhi High Court Refers Conflict On Territorial Jurisdiction To Larger Bench MACT Cannot Adjudicate Personal Accident; Deceased Tortfeasor's Heirs Cannot Claim From Own Insurer For His Wrong: Gujarat High Court Do Not Shut Doors To Litigants: J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Plaint, Rules Summary Suit Can Be Converted To Regular Recovery Suit Cannot Expect A Spouse To Endure This Forever: Karnataka High Court Upholds Divorce, Defines Limits Of 'Ordinary Wear And Tear' In Marriage Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In ₹9 Crore Cheating Case As Accused Complied With Sharjah Decree Cannot Arbitrarily Value Damages: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules Plaintiff Must Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee On Specific Claims Remarriage Of Widow Does Not Disinherit Daughter: Madras High Court 'Fatal Flaw' In Specific Performance Suits: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea For Failing To Plead 'Readiness And Willingness' Section 125 CrPC  | Wife's Convenience Must Be Looked At In Matrimonial Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects State's Plea Against Demolition Of Unauthorized Bus Stand Wall

“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