Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi on Thursday (October 16) held that High Courts should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction in matters that properly fall within the purview of statutory tribunals. The Court dismissed a batch of appeals relating to the recruitment of 15,000 primary school teachers in Karnataka, upholding the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench order which had overturned a Single Judge’s decision to entertain the writ petitions despite the availability of an effective remedy before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The dispute involved the exclusion of certain married candidates from the Other Backward Classes category, and the Court directed that such service-related issues be adjudicated by the Tribunal within six months.

The case arose from the recruitment process for 15,000 graduate primary school teachers conducted by the State of Karnataka. The dispute centered on the eligibility of certain married women candidates who had applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category but were later excluded on the ground that their marital status rendered them ineligible for the said category. The affected candidates approached the High Court of Karnataka through writ petitions, challenging the action of the State authorities and the recruitment board. They contended that their exclusion from the OBC category violated applicable reservation norms and sought consideration of their candidature under the same category.

Also Read: Supreme Court Permits Limited Sale and Use of Green Crackers in NCR for Diwali: Festive Traditions Cannot Override Public Health and Environmental Protection

Before the Single Judge of the High Court, the petitioners argued that the disqualification based on marital status had no legal foundation and that they were entitled to the benefits of reservation extended to OBC women. The respondents, representing the State and the recruitment authorities, submitted that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the recruitment rules and government notifications governing the criteria for OBC classification. They contended that the matter involved service-related issues that fell within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Single Judge proceeded to hear the petitions on merits and granted certain reliefs to the petitioners. Aggrieved by that decision, the State authorities filed appeals before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order, holding that the writ petitions were not maintainable since an alternative and effective remedy was available before the KSAT. The petitioners thereafter approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Division Bench’s order. The matter involved interpretation of jurisdictional limits between High Courts and Administrative Tribunals concerning service matters, including recruitment and reservation-related grievances

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision, the Court stated: “in a service dispute covered by Section 15 of the Act of 1985, it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts, even in cases where they question the vires of the statutory legislations except the cases wherein the legislation under which the particular Tribunal is created is under challenge.” The judgment explained that reliance by the Single Judge on T.K. Rangarajan was misplaced: “this Court in T.K. Rangarajan… has not made any departure from the binding precedent laid down by the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar… At best, the said judgment can be termed as an order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and as such, it is not binding.”

Assessing the facts, the Bench recorded that the “unprecedented extraordinary situation” standard from T.K. Rangarajan was not met: “The dispute in the case before us only concerns the rejection of the certificates of certain candidates who took part in the recruitment process… the rejection of candidates on the basis of invalid certificates does not render them remediless so as to directly approach the High Court… Such situations under no circumstance can be deemed as an exceptional one to warrant the intervention of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.”

The Court cited consistent orders of the High Court—Kalaburagi Bench’s order dated 12 January 2023 dismissing a similar writ petition as not maintainable and the Principal Bench’s order dated 26 May 2023 disposing of writ petitions as not maintainable with liberty to approach the KSAT—stating that these “lend further support to the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

On the doctrine of alternative remedy, the Bench recorded settled law through precedents including Rajeev Kumar, Nivedita Sharma, Radha Krishan Industries, and PHR Invent Educational Society. It distilled the position as follows: “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 Court further noted that exceptions to the rule—such as enforcement of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or challenge to the parent legislation—did not apply: “the facts of the present case do not fall within any of these exceptions so as to warrant the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court.”

Explaining the statutory scheme, the Bench observed that the Act of 1985 provides a complete mechanism with KSAT’s exclusive jurisdiction over recruitment and service matters of the State; the tribunal is empowered to regulate its procedure, grant interim relief, punish for contempt, and its procedural rules envisage expeditious disposal: “What emerges from the foregoing exposition of law is that the KSAT is equipped with all the powers to effectively and holistically deal with a matter presented before it and do complete justice to the same.”

On the plea to revive the provisional select list of 18 November 2022, the Court recorded: “Any direction issued by the High Court to act on, the provisional select list dated 18.11.2022 would result in confusion and a complex situation and, therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, wherein it has not revived the provisional select list dated 18.11.2022.”

Also Read: Contradictory Findings by Arbitrator at Interim and Final Stages Render Award Patently Illegal; Madras High Court

It stated: “As a result, this batch of appeals is dismissed.” With respect to earlier protective orders, it directed: “The interim directions passed by this Court on 03.01.2024, 22.01.2024 and 04.10.2024 are made absolute with a clarification that the 500 posts which were kept reserved pursuant to the Order dated 04.10.2024 shall be filled as per the final judgment passed by the KSAT.” The Bench further addressed expedition of proceedings before the tribunal: “it is expected that the KSAT shall make every endeavour to decide any application preferred on behalf of the appellants of the second set of appeals (B)… expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of filing of such application/applications.”

“We have only dealt with the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court and not gone into the merits of the instant case. With these observations, the present appeals and all pending/interim applications stand disposed of.”

Case Title: Leelavathi N. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27984–27988 of 2023 and connected matters
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari; Justice Vijay Bishnoi