Relief cannot be granted beyond pleadings or in violation of mandatory recruitment advertisement stipulations.

The writ petitioners (respondents 1st set) were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Professors in constituent colleges of Magadh University before 10.12.1989

An enquiry committee report in 2020 scrutinized their eligibility pursuant to Supreme Court directions

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking regularization of their services

While the matter was pending, the Bihar State University Service Commission (Appellant) issued an advertisement on 21.09.2020 for permanent appointments, setting a 55-year age limit and a December 2020 deadline for applications

The State informed the court that only one petitioner (No. 5) met the educational qualifications, and his age was relaxed for future selection, while others were rejected via Memo No. 2074

The learned Single Judge, despite no prayer for participation in the recruitment process being in the writ, directed the Commission to allow the petitioners to participate with age relaxation

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in granting relief (participation in a selection process) that was never prayed for in the original writ petition

2. Whether the Court can relax mandatory instructions and deadlines of a recruitment advertisement for candidates who never applied within the stipulated timeframe

the principle that a decision cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings

relief not founded on pleadings should not be granted

instructions in a recruitment advertisement are mandatory and the High Court cannot modify or relax them under Article 226

doctrine of waiver and acquiescence, noting that failure to apply or challenge an advertisement constitutes an intentional relinquishment of rights

The Court reasoned that the original writ petition was strictly confined to a prayer for "regularization" and contained no challenge to the 2020 advertisement or its age criteria

It found that the learned Single Judge erred by travelling beyond the pleadings to grant a relief (participation in selection) that was neither sought nor supported by an amendment to the writ

furthermore, since the recruitment process for most subjects was already concluded and the petitioners had failed to apply by the 2020 deadline, they had effectively waived their right to participate

The Court held that the Single Judge's direction was "in the teeth of the instructions" of the advertisement, which are binding and cannot be relaxed by judicial fiat

It rejected the respondents' plea of waiver against the Commission, noting the petitioners’ own failure to act on the advertisement

The Division Bench set aside the judgment dated 25.11.2024, dismissed the original writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5197 of 2021), and allowed the Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 73 of 2025)