The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on judicial jurisdiction, has held that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters where an effective alternate remedy is available before a State Administrative Tribunal. A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of appeals related to the recruitment of Graduate Primary Teachers in Karnataka, affirming that tribunals are the designated courts of first instance for such disputes.
The case, Leelavathi N. & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., arose from a recruitment process for 15,000 teaching posts. The Supreme Court upheld a Karnataka High Court Division Bench judgment that had set aside a single-judge order and relegated the aggrieved candidates to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT).
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a recruitment notification issued by the Department of Public Education, Government of Karnataka, on March 21, 2022. After examinations were conducted, a provisional select list was published on November 18, 2022.
However, several married female candidates who had applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category found their names excluded from the reserved list and placed in the general merit list. This occurred because the selecting authority did not accept the caste and income certificates issued in the names of their fathers, insisting instead on certificates reflecting their husbands’ status.
Aggrieved by this decision, some of these candidates filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.
High Court Proceedings
A single judge of the High Court entertained the writ petition and, in a judgment dated January 30, 2023, ruled in favour of the petitioners. The judge held the petition maintainable by invoking the “exceptional circumstances” doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan vs. Government of T.N. and Others. The court reasoned that since hundreds of applicants were affected, it constituted a peculiar situation warranting immediate interference.
The single judge further held that “caste is determined by birth and it cannot be changed by marriage,” and therefore, the creamy layer status of a candidate must be determined based on the status of their parents, not their spouse. The court quashed the provisional select list of November 18, 2022, and directed the State to consider the petitioners as OBC candidates based on the certificates they had submitted.
This directive led to the publication of a new provisional list on February 27, 2023, and a final select list on March 8, 2023. The revised list resulted in the exclusion of 451 candidates who were previously on the November 2022 list, prompting them to file writ appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench, in its judgment on October 12, 2023, set aside the single judge’s order. It framed the primary issue as whether the writ petition was entertainable under Article 226. Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., the Division Bench held that in recruitment matters, the Administrative Tribunal is the court of first instance. It concluded that the dispute over the validity of certificates did not constitute an “unprecedented extraordinary situation” to bypass the statutory remedy. The matter was consequently relegated to the KSAT, though the Bench allowed the State to proceed with appointments from the final select list as an interim measure.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Two sets of appellants approached the Supreme Court. The first group, who were ousted from the final select list, argued that the Division Bench, after setting aside the single judge’s order, should have directed the State to proceed with the original provisional list of November 18, 2022.
The second group, comprising the married women candidates, contended that the Division Bench had erred in setting aside the “well-reasoned” judgment of the single judge. The State of Karnataka maintained that it was a formal party and would implement the final orders of the court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court framed the central question for its consideration as “whether the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the Single Judge of the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions… in view of the availability of an effective alternate remedy of filing an appropriate application before the KSAT.”
The bench unequivocally affirmed the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar, which held that tribunals established under Article 323-A are to function as the sole courts of first instance in service matters. The judgment reiterated the binding precedent that “it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations… by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.”
Distinguishing the T.K. Rangarajan case relied upon by the single judge, the Supreme Court observed that it dealt with an “extraordinary circumstance” involving the dismissal of two lakh employees and did not create a departure from the rule laid down in L. Chandra Kumar. The present dispute, concerning the certificates of 481 candidates, did not fall into the category of an exceptional circumstance warranting the High Court’s direct intervention.
The Court held, “A careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments leads us to the conclusion that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.”
The bench noted that the KSAT is fully empowered under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to adjudicate such matters effectively and provide complete justice.
Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court made its earlier interim orders absolute and directed that the 500 posts kept reserved during the proceedings shall be filled based on the final judgment of the KSAT. The Court requested the KSAT to decide any application filed by the aggrieved parties expeditiously, preferably within six months, clarifying that its own judgment was limited to the issue of maintainability and did not address the merits of the candidates’ claims regarding the certificates.
