Holding

A court can modify the relief to a lesser, appropriate grant when circumstances have changed and should not dismiss a writ petition on narrow procedural grounds.

Summary

B.R. Ramabhadriah, a Forest Department officer, challenged a provisional integrated gradation list of Forest Officers issued under the States Reorganisation Act, 1947, alleging that his seniority over the 6th respondent and over five officers from the Telangana region was incorrectly fixed. The Central Government later corrected the rankings of the Telangana officers, leaving only the seniority dispute with the 6th respondent. The single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the list be modified to reflect the appellant’s seniority over the 6th respondent. The Division Bench reversed this order, holding that because the petition did not specifically seek quashing of the list for the Telangana officers, the seniority issue should not be decided and the petition should be dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that a court may grant a lesser relief than originally prayed for when circumstances change, and should not dismiss a petition on narrow procedural grounds. The judgment set aside the Division Bench’s order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, with each party bearing its own costs.

Issues considered

The court may grant a lesser relief than originally prayed for when the factual circumstances have changed.
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of a provisional gradation list can be partially decided on inter‑seniority issues despite the petitioner not expressly seeking relief for other respondents.
Whether the Division Bench was correct in dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not specifically prayed for quashing of the list concerning certain officers.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 226
States Reorganisation Act, 1947

Subjects

writ of mandamussenioritygradation listinter‑seniorityStates Reorganisation Actprocedural lawpartial reliefchanged circumstancesadministrative law

Judgment

159

B.R. RAMABHADRIAH A
i
v.
SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

July 30, 1981 B

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.J

Constitution India 1950, Art. 226-Relief under-Court whet her.~competent to

- take note of changed circumstances and grant smaller relief than claimed in writ
petition.

The appellant, an officer of the Forest Depertment challenged the provi ..
a
sional integrated gradation list of Forest Officers of the former Andhra and
Hyderabad States published under the provisions of the States Reorganisation
't Act, 1947, in his writ petition, contending that (a) the inter-se seniority between
\
the appellant and the 6th respondent, both of whom originally belonged to the
Andhra Cadre, had been wrongly fixed by showing the 6th respondent as senior D
to the appellant whereas the appellant was legally entitled to seniority over the
6th respondent, and (b) that respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 officers allotted
to the State of Andhra Pradesh from the Telengana region of the former
Hyderabad :state, had been erroneously assigned ranks above the appellant in
violation of the principles laid down by the Government of India for equation
of posts and :fixation of inter-se seniority.
E
During the pendency of the writ petition the Central Government set right the
appellant's grievance concerning his ranking and seniority in relation to respon·
dents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. When the writ petition came up for hearing the appellant
pressed only his claim for seniority over the 6th respondent and as the contention
was well founded, the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and issued
a writ of mandamu~ directing the Government of India to modify the gradation
list by showing the appellant as senior to the 6th respondent. F

In the appeal to the Division Bench by the- 6th respondent, the Division.
Bench took the view that since the prayer contained in the writ the petition was
for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents nos. 1 and 2 to for-
bear from implementing the provisional gradation list published alongwith the
Government Order dated January 27, 1962 and as the appellant had not pressed
the prayer for quashing of the list in so far as it related to the officers of Telen- G
gana region viz. respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the writ petition should have been
dismissed on that short ground and the question relating to the inter-se
seniority between the appellant and the 6th respondent ought not to have been
decided. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order passed
by the sin&le Judge and dismissed the writ petition. H
Allowin& tbe appeal to this Court,
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] J S.C.R.

A HELD : In an action where a party has prayed for a larger relief it is
always open to the Court to grant him any smaller relief that he may be found
to be entitled to in law and thereby render substantial justice. The Court can
take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted
to the party concerned in order to met~ out justice. As far as possible the anxiety
and endeavour of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is brought
to its notice rather than deny relief to an aggrieved party on purely technical ar.d
B narrow procedural grounds. [162 G-163 A]

In the instant case the writ petition contain~d the prayer for the quashing
of the gradation list in so far as it related to the inter-se ranking of the appellant
vis·a-vis respondents nos. 3 to 8 and the appellant had also sought the issuance
of a writ of mandamus directing respondents nos. I and 2 to forbear from imple-

c
menting or acting upon the said gradation list. Subsequent to the institution of
the writ petition the Central Government had refixed the ranks of respondents
nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 and placed them below the appellant thereby redressing the
grievance of the appellant in so far as it pertained to rhe ranking of the said
respondents. It, therefore, became unnecessary for the appellant to pursue his
-
claim for relief with respect to the ranks assigned to those five respondents. It
was under those circumstances that the appellant submitted before the single
Judge at the time of final hearing of the writ petition that he was pressing the )
writ petition only in so far as it related to his claim for seniority over the 6th
D respondent. This will not operate to preclude him from seeking a lesser relief
namely the quashing of the list only in so far as it pertains to the fixation of the
inter-se seniority between himself and the 6th respondent. [162 B~FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2050 of
1973.
E
Appeal by special leave from the judgmeut and order dated
the 14th October, 1971 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Appeal No. 691 of 1970.

B. Parthasarthi for the Appellant.

F P.N. Poddar for Respondent No. 2. -
S. Markandeya for Respondent No. 6.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal preferred by special leave
G
is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court setting aside the decision of a learned single judge of
that Court and dismissing a writ petition filed by the present
appellant.
H
The appellant, who was working as an officer of the Forest
Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh, approached the High
B. RAMABHADRIAH v. F. AND A. DEPTT. (Balakrishna Eradi, J.) 161

Court challenging the provisional integrated gradation list of Forest A
Officers of the former Andhra and Hyderabad States published under
the provisions of the States Reorganisationi Act, as annexure to a
State Government Order dated January 27, 1962. The contentions
raised by the petitioner in the writ petition were mainly two-fold.
Firstly, it was urged that the inter-se seniority between the appellant
and the 6th respondent, both of whom originally belonged to the B
Andhra Cadre, had been wrongly fixed in the provisional gradation
list by showing the 6th respondent as senior to the appellant, whereas
the appellant was legally entitled to seniority over the 6th respondent.
Secondly, it was contended that respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8

- who were officers allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh from the
Telengana region of the former Hyderabad State, had been erro-
neously assigned ranks above the appellant in the integrated grada-
tion list in violation of the principles laid down by the Government
of India for equation of posts and the fixation of inter-se seniority
c

between the persons drawn from the two sources.

By the time the writ petition came up for bearing before the D
learned single judge, the Central Government had already set right
the appellant's grievance concerning his ranking and the seniority
in relation to respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. It therefore became un-
necessary for him to pursue the second contention aforementioned
and hence he pressed before the learned single judge only the plea con-
cerning his claim for seniority over the 6th respondent. The learned E
single judge found that the contention put forward by the appellant
that he was entitled to seniority over the 6th respondent was well
founded. Accordingly, the learned judge allowed the writ petition and
issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and the
Government of India to modify the gradation list by showing the
appellant as senio.r to the 6th respondent. F

The 6th respondent carried the matter in appeal before a
Division Bench of the High Court by filing Appeal No. 691 of 1978.
The Division Bench took the view that since the prayer contained in
the writ petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing G
respondents No. I and 2 to forbear from implementing the provi·
sional gradation list published along with the Government Order dated
January 27, 1962, and inasmuch as the petitioner had not pressed
the said prayer for quashing of the list in so for as it related to the
officers of Telengana region (respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8), the writ H
petition should have been dismissed on that short ground and the
question relating to inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] l S.C.R.

A 6th respondent ought not to have been decided by the learned single
judge. In this view, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal,
set aside the order passed by the learned single judge and dismissed
the writ petition. The appellant has come up to this Court question-
ing the legality and correctness of the aforesaid reasoning and
conclusion of the Division Bench.
B
It is true that the writ petition contained a prayer for the
quashing of the gradation list in so far as it related to the inter-se
ranking of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and the
petitioner (appellant) had also sought the issuance of a writ of
c mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to forbear from
implementing or acting upon the said gradation list. But subsequent
to the institution of the writ petition, the Central Government has
refixed the ranks of respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 (Telengana
-
Officers) and placed them below the appellant thereby redressing the
grievance of the appellant in so far as it pertained to the ranking of
the aforesaid respondents. It therefore became unnecessary for the
D
appellant to pursue his claim for relief with respect to the ranks as·
signed to those five respondents. It was under those circumstances that
the appellant submitted before the learned single judge of the High
Court, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, that he was
pressing the writ petition only in so far as it related to bis claim for
E seniority over the 6th respondent. We fail to see how the fact that
the appellant had sought in the writ petition the issuance of a writ
of mandamus directing respondents l and 2 to forbear from imple-
menting or acting upon the provisional gradation list will operate
to preclude him from seeking a lesser relief, namely, the quashing
of the list only so far as it pertains to the fixation of the inter-se
F seniority between himself and the 6th respondent. The material
facts and circumstances had undergone a substantial change sub-
sequent to the filing of the original petition and it was in conse-
quence thereof that it had become unnecessary for the petitioner to
pursue his original prayer for the grant of a larger relief. Besides
ignoring this crucial aspect, the Division Bench of the High Court
G bas also lost sight of the well established principle that in an action
where a party has prayed for a larger relief it is always open to the
court to grant him any smaller relief that he may be found to be
entitled in law and thereby render substantial justice. The Court
can undoubtedly take note of changed circumstances and suitably
H mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to
mete out justice in the case. As far as possible the anxiety and
endeavour of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is
B. RAMABHADRIAH v. F. AND A. AGRI. (Balakrishna Eradi, J.) 163

.) brought to its notice rather than deny relief to an aggrieved party A
on purely technical and narrow procedural grounds. We do not,
therefore, find it possible to uphold the view expressed by the
Division Bench of the High Court that since the writ petition was
not pressed in so far as it related to the officers belonging to the
Telengana region the question of inter-se seniority between the writ
petitioner and the 6th respoodent should not have been considered B
by the single judge and the writ petition should have been dismissed.

Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench
and remand the writ appeal to the High Court for fresh disposal in
- accordance with law. The parties will bear their respective costs in
this appeal. c

N.V.K. Appeal allowed
I