A stay is unwarranted absent proof that parallel proceedings involve identical issues.

The petitioners had filed applications before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal challenging a Government circular dated 1 June 2021 concerning seniority and pay fixation under the 2021 Special Rules for the 1998 batch of Gazetted Probationers.

They sought to defer those applications until the High Court decided separate writ petitions challenging changes to their rankings in the revised select list.

The Tribunal rejected their requests for deferment.

The petitioners then filed these connected writ petitions challenging the Tribunal’s orders dated 12 April 2023 and 3 August 2023.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to defer the petitioners’ applications concerning the 1 June 2021 circular until the High Court decided the separate writ petitions concerning the revised select list.

2. Whether the issues in the Tribunal applications and the pending High Court writ petitions were sufficiently identical to justify deferment under the principle reflected in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court referred to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a subsequently instituted proceeding may be stayed where the matter directly and substantially in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted proceeding between the same parties, or parties claiming under them, litigating under the same title.

The Court stated that establishing identity between the issues is essential to invoking that principle.

The pending High Court proceedings concerned the petitioners’ altered positions in the revised 1998 Gazetted Probationers’ select list, whereas the Tribunal applications challenged the 1 June 2021 circular and its clarifications concerning seniority and pay fixation under the 2021 Rules.

The petitioners did not establish that the issues were identical and had not placed the pleadings from the pending writ petitions on record for comparison.

The Court also noted that the petitioners remained in their existing positions under interim orders in the pending writ petitions.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s refusal to defer the applications.

It found no merit in either writ petition and rejected both, leaving the Tribunal’s orders undisturbed.