IN ?HS3 HADHYA PRftDSS ^: [S." ,^" A^3^Z1VI^?^.^TZV^ TRX5U?;^.L O'^B^L VCV 1994 a^'i'i'.i.aei:. Ra.j lO-imar 1?s:tel 3/o Shri Pitamber Fa.tei aged a.bou'fc 28 yes.rs, resiaen't. of Pa.rsadeepa. village 'c'anaripani fcahsil and district Raigari-i (M.P.5 ^a. ARD !u State of Kiact'nya Pradesh, Through Secre'ks.iy School BduGation, Valla'oh Bhawan, BI-IOPAL. Deputy Directo r , Sdhool Sducstion, Raigarh (MoP.) Sub Divisional Offiaer (.Revenuej , C'hairraen Selection Gomrnit'tee, 3?«0. and district Rci'garh (M.F.) Babu Lal Sahu S./o Shri Tikarara San.u residen-t of Pandripanii, Post Koda ,y -^-^ J"'i ^- ^l.^—.'v*-~i.dli"_ ^ ^^-3-^v. -^'-^—sumlissnt.; As s-taC ^w ;••.. ti lUUIIUBIIl ^•3 ^< iKT 10 rRIT ?-fs r-^s° <>s i^ ur ^ Versus "s!| i-\U- of Other; Kumar Patei Madhva Pradesh H B — if^ >9 ^•^ T^-^Sii c itj.- Shri V.R.Twari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lswyer forthe State. ?"• n \ U. rv-3. ) (Passed on thls 1st day of March, 2011) The pet'tioner seeks to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 Babu Lal Sahu, on the post of Teacher in Junior Primarv Schoo! Parsadeepa, Dlstrict Raiaarh, by order dated 11.3.1993 on the around that reauirement to aive preference to a v'iiacie, which is cioser to the School, as prescribed in Ciause-2 of the circuiar dated 13.9.1990 (Annexure-A) is not foi!ow?ed. Learned counse! aDDearina for the Detitioner submtts that Babu Lal Sahu had died durina Dendencv of this case and his wife namelv Geeta Bai Sahu has baen imDleaded, as partv resDondent. The question asto whether the petltioner was appointed, in accordance with law, cannot be considered at this stage, as Babu Lai had aiready dled. Secondly, the petitioner has not ciaimed his appointment, as s conseauence ofauashina ofthe appointment order dated 11.3.1993, but the relief souaht for, Is to consider the candidates belonglng to Parsadeepa Para v'iiage in preference to other candidates, which cannot be aranted todav, when the aDDointment of Babu La! was mad° on 11.3.1993 and he died durina pendency of thls petition. Thus, the question ralsed by the petitloner has become academic, warrantina no adjudication. it is weti settled that if a has become infructuous on the facts cf fhe case and question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessarv to examine the case. In the matter of Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Deih', and. Rajasthsn and arsother', the Sugreme Court observed as under; z "12. ...We take the view that this Court should not make any pronouncement on any question whteh is not strictly necessary for the disposalof the particular case before it.We, therefore, confine our attention to Art. 14 and proceed to discuss the question on that footing." ^ •I :• 1 i-'r llf li.<i...,i)dl,<.,.ii. 5. I" the mattsr of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv their Lordships observed as under:- "4. ....In this view grqunds raised in the -•'-?-''petition for setting aside the election of the respondent have been rendered academic. Court shouid not undertake to decide an issue unless it is a living issue between the parties. tf an issue is pureiy' acadsmic in that its decision one way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties, it wouid be waste of public time to engage itself in deciding it. Lord Vlscount Simon in his speech in the House of Lords in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Jarvis observed: 1 do not think that it wouid be a proper exercise of the authority which this House possesses to hear appeals if it occupies time in this case in deciding an academic question, the answer to which cannot affect the respondent in any way.It is an essentiai quality ofan appea! flt to be disposed of by his House that there shouid exlst between the parties to a matter in actual controversy which the House undertakes to declde as a living issue." 6. In the matter of Secretary, Ministry of Snformation & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others v. Cn'cket Association of Bengal and ofhers , the Supreme Court observed as under:- "121. The orders passed by the High Court have ^ tobeviewedagainstShebaGkdropoftheevents and the positjon of law discussed above. The circumstances in which the High Court passed the orders and the factual and legal considerations which weighed with it in passing them speak for themselves. Howeyer, since the cricket matehes have already been teiecast, the question of the legality or otherwise of the orders has become t- ^ 2 (1987) Supp. SCC1 93 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161 - . '"'•^^, ,•'•£.•<., ^ ^ 'v^ ''^^:;;^^1'' 3 academic and it is not necessary to pronounce our formai verdict on the same. Hence we refrain from doing so." 7. In the mater oi State of Manlpur and others v. .Chandam Manihar SmgA the Supreme Court obsen/ed as under- "10. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we find that asthe High Court's direction in favour of the respondent's tenure which isto expire on 15-10-1999 has almost worked itself out and iess than a month ^' a'emains for him to actas Chairman of the Board, the first grievance raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in connectton with the rerfiova! of the respondent by order dated 19-10-1998 has become of academic interest. We, therefore, did not permit learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to canvass this point any further before us. That takes us to theeonsideration ofthesecond pojnt." 8. The Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of AmitDas v. State ofBihar' obsen/ed as under:- "6. It is settled practice that this Court does not decide matters which are only of; academic interest on the facts of a particular case. (See with advantage: Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., R. S. Nayakv. A. R. Antulay and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi.)". 9. In the matter of Prakash Singh Badat and another v. State of Punjab andothers the Supreme Court observed as under:- "39. So far as the question about the non-1 appiication of mind in the sanction or absence of j sanction is concemed, this has been answered; in the first question i.e. where the publiei servant has cegsed to bea publicservant sincel he has ceased to hold the office where the| alleged offence is supposed to have takenl place, ths other questions really become | academic." ^ 9 (19S9! 7 SCC 503 5 (2001) 7 SCC 657 6 (2007) 1 SCC 1 •?«--1''-'3^ ,^s»>c% ?:^^ ,:.^^,^ ^JLI- ^y^/ ^•^•^?.^ 10. This Court, relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases as aforestated, in Tntiya Verg Shaskiya Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti MaryacSt v. The ChhatSsgarh Information Commission <S Others, he!d that question of law of academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. . / ^ 77- Sd/-" Satish K. .Agmhotri K • tSB n B .;!<; 1 • 1 e: ' :t