Summary
The Court remanded a judicial-service seniority dispute because the High Court intertwined independent objections to a gradation list with a constitutional reservation ground never urged by the petitioners. Whether roster points could determine inter se seniority remained for fresh decision. The Court preserved the High Court’s administrative freedom to reconsider the list and held consequential directions for the relevant batch in abeyance pending adjudication.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could decide the gradation-list challenge on an unraised constitutional ground.
- What course was appropriate for the unresolved dispute over roster-based seniority.
Held
- Reliance on Ashok Kumar’s constitutional reservation reasoning was unnecessary and inappropriate because that ground was neither pleaded nor argued. Although other grounds had also been considered, the reasoning was intertwined, warranting remand without expressing a merits view on those independent objections. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The central question whether seniority could be based on roster points required fresh judicial determination. The High Court’s administrative acceptance of infirmities in the list did not preclude it from independently taking a considered administrative decision in the meantime. (¶¶ 6, 10, 11)
Result
High Court judgment set aside and writ petition restored for fresh decision, preferably within two months of receipt of a certified copy. Consequential directions based on the 2003-batch gradation list held in abeyance pending the decision; the High Court remained free to act administratively.