ORDER : B.N. Srikrishna, J. The writ petition filed by a group of candidates for the post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute was dismissed by the High Court by a short judgment observing: "The facts of the case are covered by the judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P., WP. No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13-5-1998. The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and direction as in aforesaid judgment." 2. The judgment in Tulsi Ram State of U.P., WP. No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13-5-1998 was challenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made on 10-1-2001 in Civil Appeals Nos. 961-62 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 pertaining to the present appellants, was delinked from the group of matters. 3. In Mohd. Altaf (1) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 this Court decided the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid appeal of Tulsi Ram1. The controversy in Tulsi Ram1 centred around the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the post. The eligibility criteria as advertised were threefold and they were as under: "(3) For the post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute-(1) Postgraduate degree from a recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. (2) LT Diploma from Education Department of U.P. or BT or BEd or any other degree of university equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years of teaching experience as Head of any Senior Secondary or normal school or three years' experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in CT or LT Training Postgraduate College as lecturer." 4. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by Eligibility Criterion 3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools, while the U.P. Public Service Commission (U.P. PSC) was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a Government school. This controversy was resolved by the order of this Court in Mohd. This controversy was resolved by the order of this Court in Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 and this Court took the view that the lecturers having three years' teaching experience in CT/LT colleges in training colleges were also eligible, since the rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in Government college or aided or unaided Government college or institution. This Court was further of the view that teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or higher classes. Having laid down the law thus, U.P. PSC was directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High Court and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the post advertised within a stipulated period. After the list was prepared in accordance with the directions given by this Court, on 14-3-2001, the appeals came up for hearing and were disposed of by a final order made on 20-2-2002. In the said order, after holding in favour of the appellants, this Court said: (Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 146, SCC p. 149, para 9) "9. Lastly, it is clarified that the directions issued by this Court on 10-1-2001 as well as today would be implemented in favour of all the eligible candidates." 5. It was observed in the order dated 10-1-2001 that: (Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 SCC p. 142, para 8) "8. The aforesaid direction is to be considered in the light of the discussion in the judgment, which specifically provides that if the teachers who have been substantively appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are not paid the salary from the public treasury as those institutions were not given maintenance grant/grant-in-aid it cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of the State Government and such teacher cannot be excluded for being considered to be appointed. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed that most of the matters filed by the teachers are with regard to this clause. It is their contention that if this direction as explained in the body of this judgment stands implemented, most of the matters may not survive". 6. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed that most of the matters filed by the teachers are with regard to this clause. It is their contention that if this direction as explained in the body of this judgment stands implemented, most of the matters may not survive". 6. Although the case of the appellants was delinked from that of Mohd. Altaf, we would have thought that the interpretation as to the eligibility criteria laid down in Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 would equally govern the case of the appellants and the appellants would have been dealt with in accordance with the said interpretation. 7. The appellants thereafter made an application IA No. 4 of 2003 before this Court placing on record the different orders made in Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 and Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 146 and praying that their appeals be also allowed in terms of the orders of this Court dated 10-1-2001 and 20-2-2002 and for consequential directions for relief to the appellants. While opposing this prayer made in IA No. 4, U.P. PSC filed a counter-affidavit in which they have raised a fresh issue that the appellants before us were not included in the list of successful candidates because they had failed to qualify the written examination and, therefore, there was no occasion to call them for interview at all. This, of course, has been denied by the appellants in the rejoinder-affidavit, who have pointed out that U.P. PSC had acted irregularly by including in the select list names of the persons, who were originally not even notified in the Official Gazette notification by acting clandestinely. 8. In our view, it is not open to the respondents to raise a fresh controversy on facts before this Court for the first time. We are informed, and it is not disputed before us, that the respondents did not file a counter-affidavit before the High Court opposing the averments made in the writ petition, nor have they done so before us. The new case sought to be set out, about the appellants not having been qualified in the main examination, appears for the first time in reply to IA No. 4. Since there has been no investigation of facts in this case, we decline to entertain this controversy. 9. The new case sought to be set out, about the appellants not having been qualified in the main examination, appears for the first time in reply to IA No. 4. Since there has been no investigation of facts in this case, we decline to entertain this controversy. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the respondents to implement the orders in Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 dated 10-1-2001 and Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 146 dated 20-2-2002 and apply the same eligibility criteria as decided by this Court in the aforesaid orders to the case of the appellants. If it is the case of the respondents that the appellants did not qualify in the main examination and, therefore, they were not called for the interview, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders giving the reason as to why the case of the appellants has not been considered and disclose the marks obtained by them as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview. It will be equally open to the appellants to challenge such an order, if passed by U.P. PSC. 10. The learned counsel appearing for U.P. PSC states that they have already filed a list of candidates whose cases had been considered pursuant to the directions of this Court. As indicated earlier, this controversy being raised for the first time before this Court, we decline to go into it and leave it open. 11. Since the matter has been considerably delayed, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders and communicate them to the appellants within a period of four weeks from today. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.