Pleadings – Writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondentUniversity to pay him salary as Lecturer – Writ petition dismissed by the High Court on basis of the paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 of the rejoinder – Review application was also dismissed – On appeal, held: From the records it appears that along with the writ petition of the appellant another petition was connected and heard – While deciding the writ petition of the appellant paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 of another writ petition was referred to – The judgment of the High Court deciding writ petition of appellant without referring to the pleadings in the concerned writ petition cannot be upheld – Thus, judgment and order of the High Court set aside and matter remitted to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh on the basis of the pleadings on the record.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant claims ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer, Military Science in a Post Graduate College Affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The submission of appellant is that paragraphs of the counter-affidavit i.e. 3(h) and 3(i) as well as paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit in the writ petition which has been referred to and relied by the High Court for dismissing the writ petition are not present in the counteraffidavit filed to the writ petition of the appellant and the rejoinderaffidavit filed by the appellant. [Para 10][187-D]
2. From the records it appears that along with the Writ Petition No. 29473 of 1999 filed by the appellant another writ petition being No.29474 of 1999 was connected and heard. It appears while deciding writ petition of the appellant the paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 in Writ Petition No.29474 of 1999 has been referred to. [Para 13] [188-H; 189-A]
3. The High Court unless looks into the facts of the appellant’s case and pleadings made therein the writ petition could not have been decided. It is relevant to notice that the error committed by the High Court in deciding the writ petition on 06.10.2015 was brought into the notice of the High Court by filing detailed review application after withdrawing SLP from this Court but the review application was dismissed by non-speaking order without adverting to the specific grounds raised in the review application. The judgment of the High Court deciding Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 without referring to the pleadings in the writ petition i.e. pleadings in the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, cannot be upheld. [Para 14][189-B, C]
4. Thus, the ends of justice would be served in setting aside the judgment and order of the High court dated 06.10.2015 and 09.03.2016 and remitting the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh on the basis of the pleadings on the record. [Para 15][189-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.