Summary
The Supreme Court remanded a lecturer’s writ petition because the High Court had relied on pleadings from a connected case rather than his own record. A detailed review application highlighting the mismatch had also been rejected without reasons. Salary and regularization claims remained dependent on fresh merits adjudication.
Issues
- Whether the writ judgment and review rejection could stand when the judgment relied on another case’s pleadings.
Held
- The counter-affidavit paragraphs relied on by the High Court did not exist in this petitioner’s counter-affidavit, and the quoted rejoinder differed from his. The connected case’s pleadings appeared to have been substituted. (¶ 10–13)
- The High Court had to determine the petitioner’s case on its own facts and pleadings. Specific review grounds identifying the error required consideration; the non-speaking rejection did not cure the flawed adjudication. (¶ 14)
- No view was expressed on the underlying claim. Salary and the separately pending regularization claim would depend on the outcome of the freshly decided writ petition. (¶ 15)
Result
Impugned writ judgment and review order set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for fresh merits decision on the correct pleadings. Appeals disposed of; no finding granting salary or regularization.