Kurian Joseph, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant appeared for the competitive examination for the State service conducted during the year 2010. He approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking benefit of certain answers for which marks had not been awarded, which was found out in the process of RTI application. Learned Single Judge, as per judgment dated 28.03.2016, granted the consequential benefits on appointment and seniority. That was challenged by Respondent No.1/State Public Service Commission before the Division Bench. In the impugned judgment(s), though the Division Bench, in principle, agreed with the process, the Division Bench was not quite happy with the relief moulded by the learned Single Judge, hence the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge in the matter of moulding the relief.
(3.) We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge.;