Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is true that the view taken in special Civil Application No. 886 of 1959 is that the principle of merger is applicable in the case of both the appellate as well as revisional orders. In our view the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh runs counter to the view taken in Special Civil Application No. 886 of 1959. The facts of the Supreme Court case were that consequent on a departmental inquiry, a head constable was dismissed for service. The dismissal was prior to the coming into force of the Constitution. The constable had preferred an appeal against that order and the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal. The order of dismissal, however, was made subsequent to the date the Constitution came into force. The constable further had preferred a revision application against the order of the appellate authority. That application was also rejected. The matter was then taken to the High Court by way of the writ petition. The High Court found that the dismissal was wrongful and allowed the petition setting aside the order of dismissal. Against the order of the High Court an appeal was taken to the supreme Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. The question raised was that the dismissal having taken place prior to the date the Constitution came into force, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere by way of a writ under article 226, or 227 of the Constitution of India. This argument was countered by another argument on behalf of the constable that though the order of dismissal was made prior to the date the Constitution came into force, the appellate order and the order made in revision were made subsequent to the date the Constitution came into force. The original order of dismissal had got merged first in the order of the appellate authority and later in the order of the order of the revisional authority. The final operative order thus being of the revisional authority. The final operative order thus being of the revisional authority and that having been passed subsequent to the date the Constitution came into force, the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ under articles 226 and 227 to the Constitution of India. The contention raised on behalf of the constable was rejected by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In dealing with this contention at page 611 of the report Das, C.J., has observed :

4. These observations of their Lordships, in our view, are little assistance to the respondent in this case. We are not here dealing with an appellate order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax in revision. The ration arising from the decision of the Supreme Court Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh 2, so far as the order rejecting a revision application is concerned, remains unaffected. A distinction between an appeal and a revision has been clearly pointed out in lata Mangeshkar's case and no good reason has been shown to us to take a view different from that taken by a Division Bench of this court in Lata Mangeshkar's case . That decision has not been noticed in Special Civil Application No. 886 of 1956. The decision in Special Civil No. 886 of 1959 chiefly turned on the weight of authorities. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh also had not been noticed in that case. We, therefore, hold that when a revisional court does not reverse or modify the order of the subordinate revisional court does not reverse or modify the order of the subordinate of the order of the subordinate court in the order of the revisional court and the operative order that revisional court. For these reasons in our view the first preliminary objection raised by Mr. Joshi should fail.