A writ amendment introducing a new cause of action after completed pleadings is impermissible.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 13 June 2023 directing them and similarly situated teachers to undergo medical-board examination for verification of their disability certificates.

After pleadings had been completed, petitioner No. 2, Smt. Nisha Tyagi, sought amendment of the writ petition and impleadment of Ms. Nikita Bhargava.

Petitioner No. 1 separately sought withdrawal of the writ petition.

Whether the principles underlying Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply while considering amendment applications in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether petitioner No. 2’s proposed amendment, introducing a merit-based claim founded on the comparative ranking and appointment of another candidate, was necessary for determining the controversy in the original writ petition?

Whether the amendment could be permitted after completion of pleadings without causing prejudice to the respondents or substantially altering the nature and scope of the writ petition?

Whether petitioner No. 2 should be left to pursue the proposed independent appointment claim in a separate proceeding?

The Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply to proceedings under Article 226, but the High Court may keep in view the principles underlying relevant CPC provisions, including Order II Rules 1 and 2 and Order VI Rule 17.

Chapter X Rule 23 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 also requires an Article 226 petition, as far as possible, to conform to Order II Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the CPC and to disclose the challenged order or cause of action, material facts, grounds and relief.

Relying on Smt. Reshma Philip v. State of M.P., W.A. No. 319/2008, decided on 1 April 2008, the Court recognised that amendments may be permitted where they are necessary to determine the real controversy and do not alter the basic nature of the proceedings.

Under Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, and M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by LRs., (2019) 4 SCC 332, the Court must consider the necessity of the amendment, whether it changes the nature and character of the case, the stage at which it is sought, and the prejudice likely to be caused to the opposite party.

An amendment introducing a substantially different factual foundation, cause of action or relief after completion of pleadings is not claimable as of right.

The original writ petition concerned the legality of directing already appointed petitioners to undergo re-medical examination and the procedure governing any consequential action against their appointments.

The proposed amendment was not merely clerical or explanatory. It introduced precise facts regarding petitioner No. 2’s merit position, the lower ranking of Ms. Bhargava and her subsequent appointment, and sought to establish an independent right to appointment on comparative merit.

Determining that claim would require examination of matters not arising from the original controversy, including recruitment rules, category-wise merit, vacancies, the basis of Ms. Bhargava’s appointment and her legal interests.

Unlike Reshma Philip, where the amendment concerned a subsequent order arising from the same controversy, the proposed amendment here altered the factual foundation and substantially enlarged the cause of action.

Since the respondents’ reply and the petitioner’s rejoinder had already been filed, permitting the amendment would require reopening the pleadings and would prejudice the respondents by obliging them to answer a new claim.

The Court therefore held that the proposed merit-based claim was better pursued in a separately constituted proceeding in which all necessary parties and issues could be considered.

It rejected petitioner No. 2’s amendment application, I.A. No. 10833/2026, the earlier amendment application, I.A. No. 9835/2023, and the impleadment application, I.A. No. 10843/2026, holding that the proposed amendment would introduce a new and substantially different merit-based claim after completion of pleadings.

The Court expressly left the merits, maintainability, delay and laches, necessary-party questions and entitlement to relief open, and granted petitioner No. 2 liberty to file a fresh and properly constituted petition.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.