SRI M. PURANDARA AND ORS. versus MAHADESHA S. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 23-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI M. PURANDARA AND ORS. 
v. 
MAHADESHA S. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Jurisdiction under-Scope-
Writ petition against the view of Tribunal on two specific issues pertaining 
to selection of school teachers-Held : Subject-matter of adjudication could 
C not have been enlarged by the High Court at the instance of the petitioners. 
Several Original Applications were filed before the Administrative 
Tribunal questioning correctness of the select list published pursuant to 
issue of notification for filling up posts of Assistant Master/Primary 
D School teachers. Tribunal directed the selecting authority to prepare a 
fresh provisional list, call for objections as contemplated in the said 
notification, and thereafter publish the select list. Writ petitions were 
filed before the High Court questioning the Tribunal's decision on two 
E 
specific issues pertaining to the selection. firstly, the question of rural 
weightage and secondly whether the provisional list published earlier 
could be treated as the final list. 
High Court upheld the view of Tribunal on the said two issues. 
However, it was urged before the High Court by the writ petitioners that 
the selection process was vitiated and some persons who were otherwise 
F 
ineligible had been selected and their names have been placed in the 
select list. On behalf of the respondents before the High Court it was 
urged that such a plea was not raised before the Tribunal, that this was 
a fresh cause of action emanating from the final selection and had 
nothing to do with the controversy before the Tribunal. The High Court 
G felt that there was some justification in the objection. It, however in the 
broader interests of justice and keeping in view the need to avoid 
litigations gave certain directions which the appellants submit were not 
sustainable. They were not parties in the writ petitions, were not heard 
but orders which prejudicially and adversely affect their selec!ion were 
passed. 
H 
812 
• 
SRI M. PURANDARA v. MAHADESHA S. 
813 
The question which arose in this appeals is that whether the High 
Court adjudicated an issue which was not the subject-matter of chal-
lenge before it and in any event persons who are effected by the decision 
were not impleaded as parties. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The writ petitioners had not questioned the selection of 
A 
B 
the persons who are affected by he High Court's impugned order. They 
were not applicants before the Tribunal. On the contrary they questioned 
correctness of the view expressed by the Tribunal allowing the original 
applications filed by some of the respondents. Therefore, the subject-
C 
matterofadjudication beforethe High Court would not have been enlarged 
by the High Court at the instance of the writ petitioners. [817-B-C[ 
1.2. The direction given for filing affidavits and the consequential 
action to be taken thereon cannot be maintained and are vacated. This 
Court has not expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of D 
the view expressed by the High Court. It has interfered only on the 
ground that such an issue was not before the Tribunal and nobody had 
questioned in this regard before the Tribunal. It is pointed out that some 
of the appellants have got employment elsewhere and have no interest 
in those appeals. The appellants shall file a list of such persons before 
the concerned authorities. The cases of all those who are eligible shall 
be considered in respect of the consequential vacancies. Cases of the 
respondents shall be taken up on the basis of their merit to decide 
whether they can be appointed. [818-B-C-D] 
V.K. Majotrav. Union of India, [2003] 8 SCC 40; State a/Maharashtra 
v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, [2003] 9 SCC 731; The President, 
Poornathrayisha Seva Sangham, Thripunithura v. K. Thilakan Kavenal and 
Ors., (2005) 2 SCALE 1 and Secretary to Govt. and Another v. M Senthil 
Kumar, [2005] 3 SCC 451, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2288-2290 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2001 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 26943-26945 of 2001. 
WITH 
E 
F 
G 
H 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
C.A. Nos. 2291-2293, 2294-2315 and 2316-2318 of 2002. 
B 
c 
L. Nageswara Rao, V. Lakshmi Narayana, Jayant Muthuraj, G. 
Ramakrishna Prasad, Kashi Visveswar, Sharan Takkar, Dinesh Kumar Garg 
and Ashok Shar

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