STATE OF U. P. & ORS.versusNEERAJ CHAUBEY & ORS.

                      [2010] 11 S.C.R. 542


A                    STATE OF U. P. & ORS.
                               v.
                   NEERAJ CHAUBEY & ORS.
               (SLP (C) Nos. 26922-26923 of 2010)
                       SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
8
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

        HIGH COURT:

c       Allocation of business - Held: Full Bench of the High
   Court has rightly held* that the Chief Justice is the master of
   roster - He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the
   matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows
   not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of
0 s. 51 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but inheres in
   him in the very nature of things - The Chief Justice enjoys a
   special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting
   alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full
   Bench - He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard
E by which Bench - A Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume
  jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if the
   case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice - Strict
   adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining
  judicial discipline and proper functioning of the court - No
  departure from this procedure is permissible.
F
       PUBLIC INTEREST LIT/GA T/ON:

       Entertaining of a matter as public interest litigation - In
  a service law matter, the writ petition was not listed before the
G Division Bench of the High Court as per its direction - In reply
  to the show cause, in the affidavit filed by the officer
  concerned, problems faced due to lack of space were
  highlighted - The Division Bench directing the State
  Government to submit a status report about sanctioning of
H                                542
  STATE OF U. P. & ORS. v. NEERAJ CHAUBEY &                   543
                     ORS.
funds for construction of High Court building complex - Status        A
report filed indicating the steps taken - High Court directing
the senior officers of the State Government and the Central
Government to appear in person on the date of next hearing
- Held: Directions regarding construction of new High Court
building and early sanction of required funds for execution of        B
the work cannot be faulted with - In fact, Lucknow Bench of
the High Court needs a spacious building as early as possible
- However, the Court expressed its concern about the
procedure adopted by the Division Bench in an unconnected
matter treating it as PIL and keeping the issue before the            c
same Bench - In case an application is filed and the Bench
comes to the conclusion that it involves some issues relating
to public interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a Public
Interest Litigation but the court has its option to convert it into
a Public Interest Litigation and ask the Registry to place it         0
before a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as
per the Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the Chief
Justice - The Bench cannot convert itself into. a PIL Bench
and proceed with the matter itself - State permitted to move
an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court for
appropriate directions - The impugned order directing the             E
officials to appear before the High Court on the date fixed -
shall remain stayed - The instant order of stay shall continue
till further orders to be passed by the appropriate Bench
dealing with the PIL after the orders of the Chief Justice - Bar
Association is free to move a writ petition as regards                F
construction of High Court building complex before the
appropriate bench having jurisdiction over PIL.

   *Maya Dixit and Ors. Vs. State of UP. and Ors. [2010] 8
ADJ 631 (F.B.), approved.                                             G
    State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan AIR 1982 SC 1198;
lnder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad 1996 (7) Suppl.
 SCR 400 = (1996) 6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan vs.
Prakash Chand & Ors. 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1998) 1
SCC 1; R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch,
                                                                      H
    544       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   Madurai District, Madurai & Anr., 2000 (1) SCR 718 = (2000)
    2 SCC 391; Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (7)
                        =
     Suppl. SCR 174 (2006) 8 sec 294, relied on.
                            Case Law Reference:
B         [2010) 8 ADJ 631 (F.8.)        approved          para 8
          AIR 1982 SC 1198               relied on         para 9
          1996 (7) Suppl. SCR400         relied on         para 9

c         1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 1          relied on         para 9
          2000 (1) SCR 718               relied on         para 9
          2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 174        relied on         para 9
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) Nos.
D 26922-26923 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 16.07.2010 &
    25.08.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
    Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 1872 of 1986.
E
        Harish N. Salve, Sunil Gupta, Shail K. Dwivedi, AAG, R.K.
    Gupta, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra for the Petitioners.

        Rakesh Dwivedi, Vivek Raj Singh, Karunesh S. Pawar,
    Abhindra Maheshwari, Amit Singh, Vishwajit Singh for the
F   Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered

                               ORDER
G         Permission to file SLPs is granted.
          Taken on board.
      State of U.P. and their officials aggrieved by the interim
  orders dated 16.07.2010 and 25.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.
H 1872 of 1986 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
  STATE OF U. P. & ORS. v. NEERAJ CHAUBEY &                    545
                     ORS.
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow have filed the above SLPs.                     A
     W.P. No. 1872 of 1986 was filed by one Dr. Neeraj
Chaubey for redressal of his grievance regarding an
advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant
Professor. In the said advertisement, the eligibility criteria was
fixed as teaching experience of 7 years whereas according to          B
the Statutory Rules, the teaching experience required is only 5
years. The aforesaid writ petition was not listed as per the
directions of the Division Bench of the High Court which passed
the impugned order. The Registry of the High Court was
directed to show cause as well as a cost of Rs. 2,000/- was           C
also awarded on the Joint Registrar of the High Court. In
response to the aforesaid direction, one of the officials of the
Registry in his affidavit highlighted certain problems about want
of space for keeping the court records, sitting space for officials
and officers of the Registry. Taking note of the said facts, the      D
Division Bench, in the order dated 16.07.2010, directed the
State Government to submit a Status Report about sanctioning
of funds for construction of new High Court Building Complex
at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. It is further seen that even after filing
of Status Report and affidavit highlighting the steps taken, by       E
the impugned order dated 25.08.2010, the same Division
Bench directed the Cabinet Secretary, the Chief Secretary, the
Principal Secretary (Law), State of U.P. and Member
Secretary, Planning Commission and representative of Ministry
of Law and Justice not below the rank of Joint Secretary,             F
Government of India to appear in person along with the records
on the next date of hearing on 20.09.2010. Questioning both
the above said directions, State of U.P. filed these SLPs.
      Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for        G
Oudh Bar Association.
    Though Oudh Bar Association is not a party in these
SLPs, but considering the importance of the issue, the said Bar
Association intends to file appropriate petition before the High
Court for construction of the new High Court Building Complex         H
    546      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 O] 11 S.C.R.


A   at Lucknow. We heard their counsel also.
       At the outset, we may point out that directions regarding
  construction of new High Court building and early sanction of
  required funds for execution of the work cannot be faulted with.
  In fact, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
B Bench, Lucknow needs more spacious building as early as
  possible. However, we are concerned about the procedure
  adopted by the Division Bench issuing such directions in an
  unconnected matter treating it as PIL and keeping the issue
  before the same Bench.
c        In this regard, it is brought to our notice that the Full Bench
    decision of the same High Court of Allahabad, while answering
    the reference made to a larger bench in W.P. No. 34197 of
    2010 (Smt. Maya Dixit & Ors. vs. State of UP. & Ors.)
    decided on 13.09.2010, dealt with the issues involved herein.
0
         The High Court had taken note of various judgments of this
    Court including State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, AIR 1982
    SC 1198; lnder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC
    587; State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand & Ors., (1998) 1
E   SCC 1, R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch,
    Madurai District, Madurai & Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 391 and
    Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 and
    various judgments of High Courts and came to the conclusion
    that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice
F   has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of
    allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only
    from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51
    of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in
    the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a special
    status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone
G   and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full Bench. He
    has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which
    Bench. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or
    any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may
    like to hear and decide, the machinery of the court would
H   collapse and the judicial work of the court would cease by
  STATE OF U. P. & ORS. v. NEERAJ CHAUBEY &                    547
                     ORS.
generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a            A
particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The Court held that
a Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a
case pending in the High Court only if the case is allotted to
him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this
procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and         B
proper functioning of the court. No departure from this
procedure is permissible.
      In case an application is filed and the Bench comes to the
conclusion that it involves some issues relating to public interest,
the Bench may not entertain it as a Public Interest Litigation but     C
the court has its option to convert it into a Public Interest
Litigation and ask the Registry to place it before a Bench which
has jurisdiction to entertaih the PIL as per the Rules, guidelines
or by the roster fixed by the Chief Justice but the Bench cannot
convert itself into a PIL and proceed with the matter itself.          D
     In view of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court
of Allahabad, which we hold is in accordance with law and in
consonance with the rules and procedure, Mr. Harish N. Salve,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner-State of U.P., seeks
permission to move an application in respect of the matter in          E
issue before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate
directions. We permit the State to move such application. The
impugned order directing the officials to appear before the Court
on 20.09.2010 shall remain stayed. The present order of stay
shall continue till further orders being passed by the appropriate     F
Bench dealing with the PIL after the orders of the Chief Justice.
     Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Oudh Bar Association
informed this Court that the Association intends to file an
independent petition in respect of the matter in issue, namely,
construction of High Court building. We make it clear that the         G
Bar Association is free to move such writ petition before the
appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over PIL.
       The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
R.P.                                          SLPs disposed of.        H