Interference In Intra-Court Appeal Under Clause 15 Of The Letters Patent Appeal Is Limited Unless The Findings Of Single Judge Are Arbitrary: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that there is no requirement to interfere in order of the learned Single Judge in an intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal when there is no perverse or illegal finding. The court relied on Seshaiah v. South Central Railway, (2019) in which it was held that in an intra-Court appeal interference in the order of the learned Single Judge is not a matter of course except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily. Brief Facts of the Case The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the action of appellant/respondent in not considering her appointment as Sweeper-cum-Messenger in the bank on compassionate grounds. The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. The intra-court appeal was presented by the Respondent against the order. It was admitted fact that the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner died on 29.05.2006 and the respondent/writ petitioner made representation seeking her appointment on compassionate grounds in the post of Sweeper-cum-Messenger and the same was rejected on 27.07.2007. The counsel for the bank contended that the request made by the respondent/writ petitioner for her appointment on compassionate grounds was negatived in view of the change in the scheme. The respondent/writ petitioner contended that on the date of death of the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner, the earlier scheme for appointment of the dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in regional rural banks which came into operation from 1982 was subsisting. Court's ruling The scope of interference in intra-Court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act is limited, unless the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are illegal, irregular or perverse. The court observed that the new scheme was adopted by Regional Rural Banks with effect from 2008 when the letter was addressed by the Chief General Manager, NABARD to all sponsor banks to apply the scheme. Therefore, the earlier scheme was subsisting on the date of death of the husband of the writ petitioner. The application of writ petitioner was thus wrongly rejected and the learned Single judge was right in allowing the writ petition. The court did not find merits in the writ appeal and dismissed the intra-Court appeal. Case Title : Chaitanya Godavri Grameena Bank, Guntur v. K. Ravi KumariCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 29Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Interference In Intra-Court Appeal Under Clause 15 Of The Letters Patent Appeal Is Limited Unless The Findings Of Single Judge Are Arbitrary: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Jagriti Sanghi

Tags