INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – DOCTRINE OF MERGER 

Dr Arachna Mishra And Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

FACTS:  An Allahabad High Court Constitutional Bench rejected the request made to reconsider the law prescribed in Dr Vishwajeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which dealt with the application of reservation of law for faculty positions in higher education institutions in Uttar Pradesh. “The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 and the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act”, 1994 were analyzed in this case. In the opinion of Dr Vishwajeet Singh and Ors V. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench Division of the Allahabad High Court held that the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes and Other Backward Classes for the position of lecturer must be applied individually for each subject and that the college must be considered as 'a unit.' The additional qualification needed to be fulfilled before the reservation could be applied, namely that the number of posts in the framework is at least more than three.

Therefore, it was held, to implement the classification, that the system would necessarily consist of a minimum of five posts. Subsequently, one post must be reserved for Scheduled Castes and one post for the Other Backward Classes group. In fact, in the case of Dr Archana Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the concerns raised were close to those raised in the Heera Lal Judgment and the Vishwajeet Judgment. However, the Court had its doubts regarding the correctness of Dr Vishwajeet Singh 's judgment and the law laid down therein during considering this case on merits. The matter was therefore referred to a larger Bench. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the same in the year 2011 and the Supreme Court granted a leave to appeal. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn in 2017. 

It must be remembered that the Doctrine of Merger only requires the integration of the operational portion of the judgment under appeal. The January 2017 order cannot, therefore, be regarded as a precedent that upholds or approves the legal position set out in the Dr Vishwajeet Singh Case.

ISSUE: 

The main issue before the constitutional Bench was “Whether the full bench can proceed further on merits and rule upon the correctness of Dr Vishwajeet Singh even though the appeal preferred against it has come to be dismissed by the Supreme Court?”

OBSERVATION:

Based on the stated facts and issue, a bench comprising of five judges including the Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale held that “In so far as the case before us is concerned, it is clear from the order that the Supreme Court not only dismissed the Civil Appeals after granting leave but while doing so, clearly observed that it was in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment and accordingly affirmed the judgment of this Court. This is in our considered opinion would mean that the statement of the law as reflected in Dr Vishwajeet Singh which was the subject matter of the appeal, stands confirmed by the Supreme Court."

Further, the Hon’ble High Court gave the express approval according to which the appeal against Vishwajeet case had been dismissed.