A writ court must allow respondents an opportunity to answer disputed individual claims before deciding them.

The appeals arose from a common order dated 20 February 2025 disposing of 26 writ petitions concerning recruitment to Assistant Professor posts, principally in History and Geography, under an advertisement issued on 21 September 2020.

The writ petitioners complained that they had not been called for interview.

The Single Judge directed the Commission to provisionally call them for interview, or extend the interview date, with the exercise subject to pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Commission appealed, contending that the direction was made without allowing it to file counter-affidavits addressing the individual candidates’ eligibility and the reasons for their exclusion.

Some writ petitioners also filed appeals, which they later sought to withdraw in view of the Division Bench’s decision.

1. Whether the Single Judge could direct the candidates to be provisionally called for interview without first allowing the Commission an opportunity to file counter-affidavits addressing their individual cases.

2. Whether the appropriate course was to set aside the common order, revive the writ petitions, and leave appointments subject to their outcome.

The Division Bench applied the principles of natural justice, holding that where individual claims and eligibility issues require a response, the opposing party should be given at least one opportunity to file a counter-affidavit before the writ petitions are decided.

The judgment does not identify a particular statute or precedent as the basis of this appellate holding; it does not decide the merits of the candidates’ eligibility or entitlement to interview.

The Court considered that the writ petitions involved individual cases and disputed reasons for excluding candidates from interview, which required consideration on the basis of pleadings.

Although it noted the contention that the Commission had failed to file a counter-affidavit in another writ petition despite opportunities, the Court concluded that this did not remove the need to give it at least one opportunity in the present cases.

Because the Single Judge proceeded to decide the petitions without that opportunity, the Division Bench found a serious infringement of natural justice and held that the common order could not stand.

It directed the Commission to file counter-affidavits within three weeks and the petitioners to file rejoinders within one week thereafter, for determination by the Single Judge in accordance with law.

Any appointments to the relevant Assistant Professor posts are subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, and appointment letters must state that condition.

The LPAs were disposed of, except LPAs 272, 273 and 360 of 2025, which were dismissed as withdrawn; specified intervention applications in LPA 198 of 2025 were also dismissed as withdrawn.

The revived writ petitions were directed to be listed before the Single Judge as per roster on 2 November 2026.