2004 INSC 1158
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                             Telugu University

                                                      Vs.

                                              C. Muralikrishna

                                          C.A.No.20900 of 2002

                                   (S. N. Variava and H. K. Sema JJ.)

                                                 08.10.2004

                                                   ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard parties.

3. This Appeal is against the order of the High Court dated 4th June, 2002.

4. Briefly stated the facts are that the post of Deputy Librarian fell vacant in the Petitioner-
University. Interviews were held for the post. Respondent No. 4 (herein) was selected as
Deputy Librarian.

5. The selection was challenged by the 1st Respondent (herein) by filing a Writ Petition in
the High Court. That Writ Petition was to the effect that the selections were vitiated and that
consequently the University should issue a fresh notification for filling up the post of Deputy
Librarian.

6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

7. The 1st Respondent filed an Appeal which has been allowed by the impugned Judgment.

8. The 4th Respondent had filed a Special Leave Petition against this Judgment which was
dismissed by this Court on 15th July, 2002.

9. In this Appeal all that has been challenged is the directions given by the High Court that
the Appellant University should consider the candidature of the 1st Respondent (herein) for
the post of Deputy Librarian and that they must appoint "one of them who is the most
meritorious to the post of Deputy Librarian". It is submitted, and in our view, rightly that the
prayer in the petition was that a fresh notification be issued. Therefore, the Division Bench
could not have gone beyond the prayer directed appointment of one of these parties. The

1  SpotLaw
Division Bench could only have set aside the selection and directed issuance of a fresh
notification.

10. It is contended on behalf of 1st Respondent that the prayer in the Writ Petition was wider
inasmuch as it is prayed that the Court could pass such other orders as may be just. In almost
all petitions such wide prayers are included. But such a prayer has to be read in the context of
the averments in the petition. As stated above the specific case was that a fresh notification
be issued.

11. Before us a dispute was raised as to whether or not the 1st Respondent had applied for
the post of Deputy Librarian. In our view, it is not necessary to go into this controversy. It is
clear to us that a fresh selection takes place after issuance of a fresh notification. Therefore,
we set aside the portion of the Division Bench order reproduced hereinabove and direct that a
fresh notification be issued and fresh selection be made.

12. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

2  SpotLaw