Recruitment Disputes Must Begin at Tribunals, Not High Courts: Supreme Court Rebukes Bypass of KSAT Jurisdiction

“No Exceptional Circumstance Exists Merely Because Hundreds Are Affected” - In a judgment that reinforces the supremacy of statutory tribunals in service jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on October 16, 2025, delivered a resounding verdict holding that recruitment-related disputes must be adjudicated by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) and not directly entertained by the High Court under Article 226, unless truly exceptional circumstances exist.

The Supreme Court, speaking through a Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, held unequivocally:

“The Tribunal will continue to act as the only court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which it has been constituted... it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts.”

The Court dismissed a batch of appeals challenging a Division Bench order of the Karnataka High Court, which had rightly relegated the dispute over OBC categorization in a mass teacher recruitment to the KSAT.

“There is no right accrued from a provisional list – and reinstating it would result in confusion and administrative chaos”

The origin of the dispute lay in a March 2022 recruitment notification issued by the Government of Karnataka for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts across 35 districts. A provisional select list dated 18.11.2022 was issued following examinations in May, but excluded certain married women candidates from the OBC reservation category on the ground that they had submitted caste and income certificates based on their parents and not their husbands.

These women moved the High Court, and a Single Judge quashed the provisional list, directing that they be treated as OBCs based on their own submissions. However, the consequence was that around 451 candidates, whose names featured in the original list, were displaced in the revised select list dated 27.02.2023 and final list dated 08.03.2023.

The affected candidates challenged the Single Judge’s order in writ appeals. The Division Bench, recognizing that KSAT had exclusive jurisdiction, set aside the Single Judge's ruling and directed that the matter be taken up before the Tribunal.

“The Single Judge’s invocation of T.K. Rangarajan was wholly misplaced – the present case is not an unprecedented, extraordinary situation having no parallel”

The Single Judge had defended the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that hundreds of candidates were affected and the matter was urgent. In doing so, he relied on T.K. Rangarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, where mass dismissals of employees had justified bypassing the Tribunal.

But the Supreme Court made it clear that no such urgency or extraordinary circumstance existed here. The Court observed:

“The High Court was not justified in entertaining the petitions... the rejection of candidates on the basis of invalid certificates does not render them remediless so as to directly approach the High Court.”

Emphasizing L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India as the binding precedent, the Court noted:

“In service disputes covered by Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts… except where the Tribunal itself is under challenge.”

“KSAT is fully empowered to deal with such disputes and ensure complete justice – bypassing it undermines legislative intent”

The Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, pointing to provisions such as Section 15 (exclusive jurisdiction), Section 22 (procedure and powers), and Section 24 (interim relief). The judgment highlighted that KSAT has both judicial authority and procedural flexibility, including the power to review, punish for contempt, and ensure timely adjudication.

The Court also stressed the policy intent behind creating tribunals:

“The idea behind establishing the Tribunals was to provide speedy relief... It cannot be said that the statutory remedy before the Tribunal is not an effective remedy.”

“Merely being named in a provisional list does not confer any enforceable right”

The petitioners who were included in the first provisional list of 18.11.2022 but excluded in the final list contended that the Division Bench ought to have restored the earlier list. The Supreme Court refused, stating:

“Any direction to act on the provisional select list would result in confusion and a complex situation... the appellants had not acquired any enforceable right from being included in the provisional list.”

“Law of alternate remedy is not a mere technicality – it is central to constitutional discipline”

The Court reiterated the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies, holding that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked as a matter of convenience when a statutory forum exists. It cited multiple landmark judgments, including:

• Rajeev Kumar v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan

• Nivedita Sharma v. COAI

• Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks

• Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh

• PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank

“A writ petition under Article 226 may still be maintainable... but the facts of the present case do not fall within any of the exceptional circumstances.”

“The KSAT must decide the matter within six months”

Recognizing the prolonged uncertainty for candidates, the Court directed that any applications filed before the KSAT pursuant to this judgment must be decided within six months. The Court also made absolute its interim orders protecting certain candidates and preserving 500 reserved posts pending final outcome.

Concluding with strong words on judicial propriety and statutory discipline, the Bench stated:

“We have only dealt with the maintainability of the writ petitions... and not gone into the merits. The appeals and all pending applications stand disposed of.”

Date of Decision: October 16, 2025