Writ Court Cannot Make Out A Third Case, Not Pleaded By Parties, Based On Arguments Made During Hearing : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Dec. 18) observed that the findings of the Writ Courts should be based on the case pleaded and evidence adduced by the parties. “Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court's enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing.”, the court said. The case concerned the applicability of Regulation 10(f)(iii) under the UGC Regulations, 2018, in determining teaching experience for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. The Appellant Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges excluded marks for teaching experience of contractual or guest lecturers earning less than the salary of a regular Assistant Professor. Against the Appellant's decision, the Respondent Candidates approached the Allahabad High Court. Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court did not declare the regulation ultra vires but read it down, limiting its application to appointments for higher posts (Associate Professors and Professors). Further, the High Court had recorded observations on the post-doctoral experience after finding it to be grey area, which was neither challenged nor pleaded by the Respondents. Moreover, no clarification from the UGC was taken by the High Court in this regard. Apart from other questions, the limited question that also appeared before the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the Appellant-University was whether the findings recorded by the High Court on issue of post-doctoral experience could be sustained. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that it was not open for the High Court to adjudicate on that issues which was never averred or pleaded by the party in its pleadings. “In the absence of any definition of 'post-doctoral experience' as well as a complete lack of pleadings in regard to such experience earning marks, but assuming that there was good reason for the Division Bench to notice a grey area, either the UGC or the appellants ought to have been asked to clarify. Without seeking any clarification, it was not open to the Division Bench to surmise and conjecture and to be guided to a particular direction based on a 'perceived anomaly' while giving its decision. We are inclined to the view that the Division Bench, in the absence of the requisite pleadings and the ramifications that are closely associated with its decision, ought to have adopted a hands-off approach in this regard.”, the judgment authored by Justice Datta said.In this regard, the Court referred to a set of precedents to hold that it would be impermissible for the Writ Court to entertain such a point which was neither pleaded nor annexed with the evidence of the pleadings. In the case of Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor (1998) the Court observed."It is too well settled that the petitioner who approaches the court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 must fully aver and establish his rights flowing from the bundle of facts thereby requiring the respondent to indicate its stand either by denial or by positive assertions. But in the absence of any averments in the writ petition or even in the rejoinder-affidavit, it is not permissible for a court to arrive at a conclusion on a factual position merely on the basis of submissions made in the course of hearing.""when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point.", the Court said in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988).Appearance: For Appellant(s) Mr. Manu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Shwetank Silakwal, Adv. Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K.S. Baghel, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Manu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Shwetank Silakwal, Adv. Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi...

Writ Court Cannot Make Out A Third Case, Not Pleaded By Parties, Based On Arguments Made During Hearing : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Writ Court Cannot Make Out A Third Case, Not Pleaded By Parties, Based On Arguments Made During Hearing : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers