Holding

Any order passed by a High Court bench that is not allocated by the Chief Justice in accordance with Rule 26 is without jurisdiction and is a nullity.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. (GRSE) against a Division Bench order of the Calcutta High Court that disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointments for union members. The writ petition had been de‑listed by a Single Judge pending a reference to a larger bench, but the Division Bench later heard and allowed the petition without any allocation by the Chief Justice, relying on the parties' consent. The Court held that under Rule 26 of the Appellate Side Rules, the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, alone determines which bench may hear a matter, and any adjudication beyond that allocation is void. Consent of the parties does not confer jurisdiction, and the Division Bench’s order was therefore without authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the writ petition to the High Court for allocation by the Chief Justice, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court Division Bench can hear a writ petition without allocation by the Chief Justice under Rule 26 of the Appellate Side Rules.
Whether the consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction on a bench to hear a matter.
Whether an order passed beyond the roster allocation is void and a nullity.
Whether the Single Judge should have proceeded with the writ petition despite a pending reference.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether judicial discipline and propriety were maintained, in the light of r.26 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 1966 in relation to applications u/Art.226 and the powers of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of the roster. Headnotes† Judicial discipline and propriety – Principles of – Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 1966 – r.26 – Letters Patent – cl.15 – Intra-court appeal – Adjudication by bench of High Court without allocation by

Subjects

Intra-court appealLetters PatentDelisting of writ petitionJudicial discipline and proprietyMaster of the rosterChief Justice of the High CourtConsent does not confer jurisdictionAdjudication beyond allocationCompassionate appointmentService (Group VI) Classification List

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1813 : 2025 INSC 363

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited
v.
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2025)
25 February 2025
[Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether judicial discipline and propriety were maintained, in the light
of r.26 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta,
1966 in relation to applications u/Art.226 and the powers of the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court as the master of the roster.

Headnotes†
Judicial discipline and propriety – Principles of – Appellate
Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 1966 – r.26 – Letters
Patent – cl.15 – Intra-court appeal – Adjudication by bench of
High Court without allocation by Chief Justice – Validity – Writ
petition filed in the High Court pertaining to compassionate
appointment to the writ petitioners – Single Judge of the High
Court delisted the writ petition awaiting a decision of this
Court on the reference made to a larger bench with liberty
to mention after the reference is answered – Single Judge,
despite referring to the decision of the Supreme Court that
had settled the issue as regards the policy for compassionate
appointment, refrained from proceeding with hearing of the
writ petition on the specious ground of the pending reference –
Intra-court appeal before the appellate court-Division Bench
against the order of delisting, on the suggestion of the parties
for disposal of the writ by the appellate court – Order passed
by the predecessor Division Bench, pursuant thereto records
of the writ petition were placed before the Division Bench that
passed the impugned order – Challenge to:
Held: Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter
pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the
roster and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion
Justices’ of the said court – Any order which a bench, comprising
of two judges or a single judge, may choose to make in a case
1814 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High
Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, is without
jurisdiction – Adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such
adjudication has to be considered a nullity – On facts, even if an
intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of delisting,
at the highest, intervention to the limited extent of requesting the
Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law
was open and permissible – Single Judge not having referred the
writ petition to a bench of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor
Division Bench was not correct in accepting the suggestion of the
parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition without having any
authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf – Consent does
not confer jurisdiction – Judicial order based on consent of the
parties, is against the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even
override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have
vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ
petition – As per the roster set by the Chief Justice, determination
was not given either to the predecessor Division Bench or to the
Division Bench to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ of
the Classification List, but to the Single Benches on the relevant
dates – Thus, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the
Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction
to hear the writ petition – Order by the predecessor Division Bench
and the impugned order without jurisdiction – Impugned order
set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court – Constitution of
India – Arts.225, 226. [Paras 7-10]

Case Law Cited
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India
[2017] 12 SCR 331 : (2018) 1 SCC 196 – followed.
Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1990 Calcutta
168 – approved.
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand [1997] 6 Supp. SCR 1 :
(1998) 1 SCC 1 – relied on.
State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari [2019] 3 SCR 718 :
(2019) 5 SCC 600; N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka [2020] 3
SCR 1177 : (2020) 7 SCC 617; Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben
D. Kania [1982] 1 SCR 187 : (1981) 4 SCC 8 – referred to.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1815

Garden Reach Shipbuilders And Engineers Limited v.
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at
Calcutta, 1966.

List of Keywords
Intra-court appeal; Letters Patent; Delisting of writ petition; Judicial
discipline and propriety; Master of the roster; Chief Justice of the High
Court; Consent does not confer jurisdiction; Adjudication beyond
allocation; Companion judges; Primus inter pares; Compassionate
appointment; Judicial order; Consent of the parties; Roster set by
the Chief Justice; ‘Service (Group VI)’ of the Classification List;
Chief Justice of the High Court, being primus inter pares.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2024 of the High Court
at Calcutta in MAT No. 850 of 2022

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ranjit Kumar, Brijender Chahar, Nidhesh Gupta, Ranjay De,
Sr. Advs., Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Bisht, Yati Ranjan,
Akash Dixit, Ms. Swati Bansal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv., Swarnendu Chatterjee, Nilay
Sengupta, Sujit Banerjee, Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Ms. Harshita
Rawat, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
September 04, 20241 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench2 of

1 impugned order
2 Division Bench
1816 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.3 In course of deciding an
intra-court appeal4 filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by
the respondents in this appeal,5 their writ petition6 was allowed, the
order impugned in the writ petition set aside and directions were
issued to the appellant-Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers
Limited7 to appoint 48 (forty-eight) of the 51 (fifty-one) writ petitioners
on compassionate ground.
3. Having regard to the order we propose to pass, it is not considered
necessary to delve deep into the facts giving rise to the writ petition.
4. Suffice it to note, the subject matter of the writ petition concerned
refusal to offer compassionate appointment by GRSE Ltd. to the writ
petitioners. A learned Single Judge8 of the High Court by an order
dated February 21, 2022 (under challenge in the intra-court appeal)
had de-listed the writ petition awaiting a decision of this Court on
the reference made to a larger bench in State Bank of India v.
Sheo Shankar Tewari,9 with liberty to mention after the reference
is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a
bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka.10
We are inclined to observe that the said decision, at the relevant
time, had settled the issue as regards the policy that would apply
in considering applications for compassionate appointment, yet,
the Single Judge refrained from proceeding with hearing of the writ
petition on the specious ground of the pending reference. Although
the Single Judge may not have been entirely right in de-listing the
writ petition on the stated ground and ought to have proceeded with
consideration of the writ petition finally, giving due regard to the
law then prevailing, rights of the parties were not determined and
no judgment was rendered if seen within the prism of clause 15 of
the Letters Patent; thus, it is debatable as to whether an intra-court

3 High Court
4 MAT 850 of 2022
5 writ petitioners
6 WPA No.13605 of 2016
7 GRSE Ltd.
8 Single Judge
9 (2019) 5 SCC 600
10 Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-81 of 2014, since reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1817

Garden Reach Shipbuilders And Engineers Limited v.
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

appeal could have at all been maintained before the appellate court
against the order of de-listing in view of the decision of this Court in
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania.11 At any rate, even if an
intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of de-listing,
the writ petition not having been heard finally and on it being de-
listed by the Single Judge with liberty to mention after the reference
is answered by this Court, at the highest, intervention to the limited
extent of requesting the Single Judge to decide the writ petition in
accordance with law was open and permissible. However, it has
intrigued us to no end as to how the writ petition could be heard by
the Division Bench.
5. At this stage, our attention has been invited by Mr. Soumya Majumdar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners to an order
dated March 11, 2024 passed by another Division Bench12 which was
then seized of the intra-court appeal. It was pointed out that before
such bench, learned senior counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. had
agreed to the suggestion of counsel for the writ petitioners to disposal
of the writ petition by the appellate court and it is pursuant thereto
that the records of the writ petition were placed before the Division
Bench which ultimately, upon a contested hearing, proceeded to pass
the impugned order finally disposing of the intra-court appeal as well
as the writ petition in favour of the writ petitioners. It is, therefore,
submitted that GRSE Ltd. having also agreed to consideration and
disposal of the writ petition by the appellate court, this Court may
not take too technical a view of the matter and decide the appeal
on its merits.
6. This appeal involves a serious question as to whether judicial
discipline and propriety, in the light of Rule 26 of the Rules framed
by the High Court at Calcutta under Article 225 of the Constitution
of India in relation to applications under Article 226 thereof and the
powers of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court13 as the
master of the roster, were maintained. Rule 26, to the extent relevant,
reads as follows:

11 (1981) 4 SCC 8
12 predecessor Division Bench
13 Chief Justice
1818 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“26. ***
A Judge, for the reasons recorded, at the hearing or at
any subsequent stage of the proceeding may make it
returnable before a Division Bench or may while hearing
the Rule, refer the same to the Division Bench for hearing.
*** ”
7. The Single Judge not having referred the writ petition to a bench
of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench was not
quite correct in accepting the suggestion of the parties and agreeing
to hear the writ petition without having any authorization from the
Chief Justice in this behalf,14 and more particularly bearing in mind
the well-settled principle that ‘consent does not confer jurisdiction’.
A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the
teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the
determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested
jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition.
As a sequitur, the Division Bench which passed the impugned order
could not have assumed unto itself the jurisdiction to decide the
writ petition based on the earlier order dated March 11, 2024. The
Division Bench, without feeling bound by the said order, could and
did have the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the
absence of any determination. We presently consider it expedient
to advert to this aspect of the matter.
8. The cause-list of the predecessor Division Bench dated March 11,
2024 would reveal that it had, inter alia, the determination to hear
“Appeal From Order Relating to Service (Group VI) including
Applications connected thereto [Excluding ...]”. We have further
noticed from the cause-lists of August 16, 2024 (the date on which
the writ petition, after hearing, was reserved for judgment) and
September 4, 2024 (the date when the writ petition was allowed by the
impugned order) that the Division Bench had the same determination,
i.e., to hear, inter alia, “Appeal From Order Relating to Service
(Group VI) including Applications connected thereto [Excluding ...]”.
Moreover, as per the roster set by the Chief Justice, determination
was not given either to the predecessor Division Bench or to the

14 determination, as is commonly referred to in the High Court
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1819

Garden Reach Shipbuilders And Engineers Limited v.
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

Division Bench to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’
of the Classification List appended to the Writ Rules. We have also
noticed that determination to hear writ petitions relating to Group VI,
as made by the Chief Justice, was given to single benches on
the relevant dates. On the face of such determination, neither the
predecessor Division Bench nor the Division Bench of the High Court
could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the writ petition premised
on the legal position that they had jurisdiction to hear appeals from
orders passed on writ petitions relating to Group VI.
9. In the light of the law laid down by the High Court itself15 in Sohan
Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal,16 as approved by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand17
which has subsequently been approved by a Constitution Bench in
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of
India,18 as well as Rule 26 (supra), we hold that any order which a
bench - comprising of two judges or a single judge - may choose to
make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice
of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions,
such an order is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication,
beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered
a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court,
being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and
authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra),
and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’
of the said court. Plainly, therefore, the order dated March 11, 2024
and the impugned order are without jurisdiction.
10. On this limited ground, but without examining the merits of the rival
claims, the impugned order is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside.
We order a remand, with the result that the writ petition shall stand
revived on the file of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of
the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for
its consideration and disposal, as early as possible, but preferably
within six months from today, considering that the respondents have

15 authoritatively speaking through Hon’ble P.D. Desai, CJ. (as the Chief Justice then was)
16 AIR 1990 Calcutta 168
17 (1998) 1 SCC 1
18 (2018) 1 SCC 196
1820 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

been waiting for their turn for compassionate appointment and the
appellants have their own reasons for not proceeding with making
such appointment resulting in a delayed determination.
11. We, however, record the statement of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned
senior counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. that till such time the writ
petition is disposed of by the appropriate Bench of the High Court
to which it is assigned by the Chief Justice, no appointment shall
be made so as to render the writ petition infructuous. That would
take care of the anxiety of the writ petitioners of being non-suited,
if appointments were made to defeat their rights. Hence, we refrain
from making any interim order to be operative during the pendency
of the writ petition or to extend the ad-interim order dated August 1,
2016, passed on such writ petition.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain