The High Court must not entertain recruitment disputes when a Tribunal has jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle of alternative remedy in administrative matters per the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the Appellants challenging the Judgment dated 12.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in W.A. No.305/2023 (GM-CC); W.A. No.300/2023 (GM-CC); W.A. No.337/2023 (GM-CC); W.A. No.591/2023 (GM-CC); W.A. No.886/2023 (GM-CC) (hereinafter referred to as “the writ appeals”) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as “the High Court”). The Division Bench of the High Court, thereby set aside the Judgment passed by the Single Judge Bench of the High Court in W.P. No. 23752 of 2022 (GM-CC) dated 30.01.2023, thus relegating the matter to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “KSAT”) to be considered in a properly constituted application.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. A notification dated 21.03.2022 was issued by the Department of Public Education, Government of Karnataka inviting applications for a total number of 15,000 posts of Graduate Primary Teachers for Classes 6-8 for 35 Educational Districts (hereinafter referred to as “recruitment notification”).

4. Pursuant to the said recruitment notification, examinations were held on 21.05.2022 and 22.05.2022. The Appellants and the private Respondents herein applied and participated in the said examinations. On 17.08.2022, the results of the said examinations were declared and accordingly, a provisional select list was published on 18.11.2022.

5. The provisional select list dated 18.11.2022 did not include the names of certain married individuals/candidates, who had applied in the OBC category, as they had not produced the caste cum income certificate (hereinafter referred to as “certificate”) of their husband but rather submitted the one issued in the name of their father. As a result of non-consideration of the certificate produced by them, the said individuals were found to be ineligible for reservation provided for the OBC category and hence, their names got reflected in the general merit list.

6. Aggrieved by the same, some of the private respondents herein approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 23752 of 2022 (GM-CC), praying to quash the provisional select list dated 18.12.2022 and seeking consideration of their names in the said provisional select list.

7. A similarly aggrieved candidate (private respondent herein) filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 200032 of 2023 before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2023 as not maintainable. However, the Court granted liberty to the said writ petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in view of the law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors , reported in (1977) 3 SCC 261. Pursuant to the same, some similarly situated persons have approached the KSAT.

8. Despite the Order dated 12.01.2023 being passed by the Kalaburagi Bench of the High Court, the Single Judge of the High Court (Principal Bench) entertained the W.P. No. 23752 of 2025, presumably because the Order dated 12.01.2023 was not brought to its notice.

9. The Single Judge of the High Court in the W.P. No. 23752 of 2022 (GM-CC) on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the action of interpretation of caste and income certificates by the Selecting Authority - DDPI would be maintainable?

(ii) Whether the caste and income of the husband of the female applicant should be taken into consideration or the caste and income of the parents?

(iii) Whether the Selecti