The Supreme Court ruled that whether an order is spoken or not, dismissing a speech-language pathologist (SLP) does not lead to the doctrine of merger.
The Supreme Court noted that its decision to deny Special Leave to Appeal does not replace the original Order being contested. This statement was made in a Civil Appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision to reject a request to recall an Order. The two-Judge Bench, consisting of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, stated, “… according to the ruling in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587, an order that denies special leave to appeal can be either a non-speaking or a speaking order. In both situations, it does not invoke the doctrine of merger. An order that denies special leave to appeal does not replace the order being challenged.”
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat represented the Appellant, while AOR Gunnam Venkateswara Rao represented the Respondents. The Plaintiff applied for a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor position in Village Chudiyala, Tejupur, after responding to an advertisement from Defendant No. 1. The eligibility requirements included being a permanent resident of the designated Nyaya Panchayat, being an Indian citizen, having completed 10th grade, meeting various dealership standards, and owning a 20×24-meter plot. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No. 3, the Appellant, who lives in Village Sherpur, Shahpur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, was appointed even though he did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Plaintiff alleged that the Appellant’s appointment was based on a fraudulent domicile certificate.
The Plaintiff’s objections were overlooked, and the Appellant was appointed. The Plaintiff then initiated a lawsuit, which the Trial Court dismissed, and his subsequent Appeal was also rejected. The High Court accepted the Second Appeal, overturning the lower Court’s decisions and instructing Defendant No.1 to restart the process for granting the dealership. However, the High Court did not rule in favor of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Appellant then submitted a Review Petition, which was dismissed. Following this, the Appellant took his case to the Supreme Court, which also dismissed his Appeal. He filed another Review Petition, which was again dismissed, leading him to the Apex Court.
After hearing arguments from both parties, the Supreme Court stated that it was not inclined to allow the appeal. It noted that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.41568/2019 and the Review Petition (Diary) No. 56394/2024 would not prevent the High Court from reconsidering the second appeal. The Court expressed that it did not want to delve into the merits of the case but believed the Appellant should have another chance to present his case before the High Court. The Court emphasized that fraud undermines everything, and given the unique circumstances, the contested Order and Judgment should be annulled.
The Court instructed both parties to appear before the High Court on February 18, 2025, without waiting for separate notices, as they were represented by their lawyers. The High Court was asked to resolve S.A. No.140/2016 by considering the arguments from both sides, any additional pleadings or evidence submitted, and by framing the key legal questions. Both parties were granted the liberty to present further evidence in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Vipin Kumar v. Jaydeep & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 169)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, AOR Devyani Gupta, Advocates Tanvi Anand, Revanta Solanki, and Hruday Bajentri.
Respondents: AORs Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Priya Puri, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Advocates Poli Naidu Vudamala, Sachin Dubey, Pinki Aggarwal, Sharad Kumar Puri, Vibhav Srivastava, and Ajay Kumar Bahuguna.
