SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. AND ANR. versus M. SENTHIL KUMAR

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 28-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. AND ANR. 
v. 
M. SENTHIL KUMAR 
FEBRUARY 28, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure : 
Pleadings-Issue not raised in pleadings cannot he adjudicated by 
C Court-On facts, validity of policy decision not having been challenged before 
Tribunal, High Court erred in invalidating the same. 
Applications were invited for the post of Police Constable, in which 
10% of posts were for reserved category. Applicant-Respondent applied 
D but was not selected. He filed Original application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, and the Tribunal.held that respondent had failed 
to get selerted because his performance was not satisfactory and that he 
was not entitled for any preferential treatment. There was no finding as 
to validity of policy of reservation. Respondent filed a writ petition before 
High Court and Single Judge while holding that the respondent had not 
E come out successful 'in tests, held that reservation provided for was 
unconstitutional. 
In appeal to this ·court, Appellant-State contended that there was 
no challenge to the policy by anybody; that in fact the respondent was 
relying on the policy and that Tribunal had also not expressed any opinion 
F on the constitutional validity of the provision. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. .There was no challenge to nor express view expressed 
regarding the validity of the policy decision by the Tribunal as wrongly 
G concluded by the High court. The application before the Tribunal was 
disposed of primarily on the ground that the respondent was not suitable 
for selection. High Court could not have made out a case for adjudication 
which was not even part of the pleadings. (439-C, DI 
H 
436 
' 
.jil
-
_J 
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. v.M.S. KUMAR [PASA YAT . .I.] 
437 
2. Since there was no challenge to the policy decision the respondent A 
did not get any opportunity to place his stand before the High Court. 
Therefore, it was not open to· the High Court to dismiss the application 
on the additional ground that the policy decision was unconstitutional, 
overlooking the fact that the respondent-applicant was seeking relief under 
the policy decision. 1440-D) · 
Yogendra Pal Singh v. Union of India, AiR (1987) SC 1015; V.K. 
Majotra v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 40; State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon 
Municipal Council, 120031 9 SCC 731 and The President, Poornathravisha 
Seva Sangham, Thripunithura v. K. Thilakan Kavenal and Ors., (2005) 2 
SCALE 1, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1453 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.2004 of the Madras High 
Court in W.P. No. 26637 of 2003. 
K.K. Venugopal, Ms. Seema Bengani and Subramonium Prasad for the 
Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave. granted. 
The Government of Tamil Nadu questions legality of the judgment 
rendered by the Madras High Court holding that the policy of the State 
Government in providing I 0% special quota to the children/wards of serving/ 
retired/deceased personnel of.police and like forces is invalid. 
A brfof reference to the factual issue would suffice. 
The Tamil Nadu Service Recruitment Board (in short 'Recruitment 
Board') published a Notification in several local dailies on 5.3.2000 calling 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
for applications filling up 1155 posts of Police Constables, Grade II. In the 
Notification the Board had stated that l 0% of the posts were reserved for G 
legal heirs of serving personnel,. for ministerial staff and also for legal heirs 
of those persons who had been invalidated on medical grounds. The respondent 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'appli<:ant') filed an Original Application before 
the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'). The respondent-
applicant was not found successful as he had not faired well in the written 
test as well as the physical test. He was, therefore, not held to be qualified H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A for selection. 
The Tribunal held that since the applicant had not qualified he·was not 
fit for se!ection. He had failed to get selected·because his performance was 
not satisfactory. It was further,held that he .was not entitled for any preferential 
treatment. It is to be noted that there was no challenge by the applicant before 
B the Tribunal to validity of the policy because he himself wanted to avail 
benefits under the policy. The respondent-applicant filed a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.