Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The basic grievance of the appellants is that the High Court adjudicated an issue which was not the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court and in any event persons who are affected by the decision were not impleaded as parties.
(2.) Factual background which is almost undisputed needs to be noted in brief. By notification dated 25.2.1999 the Deputy Director for Public Instruction, Mandya District, Mandya called for applications from qualified candidates for filling up 918 posts of Assistant Master/Primary school teachers in Mandya district and fixed 31.3.1999 as the last date for receipt of applications. The notification stipulated that the application should be presented in person by the candidate on or before 5 p.m. on 31.3.1999 and the applicant should be ordinarily resident of Mandya district. Writ petitions were filed by some persons belonging to Mandya district (Writ petition Nos. 16023-16072/1999 Smt. H. Girija and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.) challenging the aforesaid stipulations. The High Court by order dated 28.7.1999 set aside the aforesaid conditions. During pendency of the writ petitions a provisional list of candidates selected was prepared and published on 14.6.1999. In view of the judgment passed in writ petition Nos. 16023-16072/1999 a notification was issued extending the time for making applications upto 31.10.1999. In the meantime the Karnataka High Court held that 10% weightage given to the rural candidates was unconstitutional. Judgment was rendered by a learned Single Judge, A Division Bench of the High Court clarified on 16.12.1999 that the decision would not affect any appointment or selection during, the pendency of the writ appeal. A Circular dated 22.12.1979 was issued giving the instructions as to the manner of implementation of the Division Benchs decision. On 23.5.2000 it was clarified that candidates in the provisional list dated 14.6.1999 would be entitled to rural weightage and candidates who applied pursuant to the decision in writ petitions Nos. 16023-16072/1999 dated 28.7.1999 would not be entitled to rural weightage. The select list was published on 4.7.2000. Several Original Applications were filed before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (in short the Tribunal) questioning correctness of the clarification dated 23.5.2000 and the select list published. Prayer was made to direct re-doing of selection process by considering all the applicants awarding rural weightage, inviting objections from the affected candidates and thereafter publish the final select list. The State and its functionaries contended that the procedure followed was in order. The rural weightage was modified, the provisional list dated 14.6.1999 was kept in tact and after examining the applications filed during the extended time the final list was published which was in accordance with the High Courts judgment in Girjas case referred to above. It was also contended that there was not much difference between the provisional list and the list published on 4.7.2000. A large number of candidates applied to the Tribunal for being impleaded as respondents and they supported the stand of State and its functionaries.
(3.) According to the Tribunal the issues which required examination were: (a) whether the rural weightage can be extended to any selection made after 26.11.1999 i.e. the date of the judgment in writ appeal Nos. 5807 of 1998. (b) whether the list dated 14.6.1999 could be regarded as a selection list entitling the candidates mentioned therein to rural weightage. (c) whether in an incomplete selection process, two standards could be adopted for selection of candidates. (d) whether the selection list dated 4.7.2000 can be maintained. ;