D.M.Premakumari vs The Divl.Commnr. Mysore Divn & Ors

D.M. Premkumari ......... Appellant

Versus

The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Ors. ........Respondents

ORDER

Leave granted.

1) The appellant calls in question the legality or otherwise of the

judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court

of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003, dated 9th day of

January, 2006.

2) The appellant belongs to "Telugu Shetty Community". She claimed

reservation under category `B' as provided under the Classification

Order passed by the Government of Karnataka for the purposes of

1 Backward Class Citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. She

was selected and appointed under the said category as Primary School

teacher by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysore.

3) The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysore, after

appointment of the appellant, had sought for verification of caste and

income certificate from the District Committee for Backward Classes

and minorities for issue of certificate. The Committee, vide its

proceedings dated 08.04.1996, was of the view that the `Telugu

Balija' caste has been transferred to Group `D' category and as the

appellant had sought reservation in Group `B' category, she would

not be entitled to retain the post of Primary School Teacher as a

person belonging to Group `B' category.

4) The appellant, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the District

Committee, had preferred an appeal before the Divisional

Commissioner, Mysore.

5) The Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 07.02.2000, has

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and thereby has confirmed

the orders passed by the District Committee.

6) The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, had approached the High Court of

2 Karnataka in Writ Petition No.10843 of 2000. The Learned Single

Judge, by his order dated 05.03.2003, has allowed the writ petition

and has set aside the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner

and also the orders passed by the District Caste Verification

Committee.

7) The State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single

Judge, had preferred Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003. The Appellate

Forum has allowed the State's appeal and, thereby, has set aside the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

8) The appellant, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Division

Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003,

is before us in this appeal.

9) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.

10)Shri P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would inform us the pathetic financial condition of the appellant and

her family members and also would tell us, that, if for any reason, the

appellant's appointment is struck down, the family of the appellant

might have to lead the life of penury, and therefore, requests us to set

aside the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka and confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3 Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State would justify the orders passed by the Division Bench of the

Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003.

11)Having given our anxious consideration to the case pleaded by the

learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view, that, it would not

be desirable to decide this case on merits. If we have to do it, we

might have to tell the appellant that she might have to go out of the

employment. This, in our opinion, would cause great hardship and

injustice to the appellant.

12)The appellant, as we have noticed earlier, was appointed as a Primary

School Teacher sometime in the year 1994. At the time of her

appointment, she had produced the caste certificate issued by the

Tehsildar. She might not have understood the nuances of legal

terminologies like Group `B' Category, Group `D' Category etc., and

therefore, now she is caught in the "cobweb."

13)The District Caste Verification Committee, which was asked to verify

the appellant's claim, is justified in informing the appointing

authorities that, strictly going by the Government's orders issued in

1986, the appellant could not have claimed any reservation under

Group `B' category. We cannot find fault with their understanding of

4 the Government Order. However, the learned Single Judge, may be

taking a very sympathetic view of the matter, has come to the rescue

of a poor primary school teacher. The Division Bench has strictly

applied the true interpretation that requires to be placed while

constituting Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

Therefore, we cannot find fault with the orders passed by the Division

Bench of the Karnataka High Court also.

14)This Court, while entertaining the special leave petition, had granted

the status-quo order. By virtue of that order, the appellant is

continuing to work as a primary school teacher. At this stage, if the

appointment of the appellant is struck down and if she is now asked

to seek employment elsewhere, in our opinion, it would cause great

hardship and injustice, for the reason by now she must have crossed

the upper age limit for seeking public employment and she may not

get any employment anywhere. It is not the case of the other side

also, that if the appellant's service is continued, it would cause any

prejudice to any other applicant.

15) "The law is merciless", is a most frequently quoted saying. It has led

people to mistakenly think that it is separated from feelings of

righteousness. We have become used to the understanding that such

5 emotions as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist in

legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This, in our view, is a mis-

understanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it

works to maintain social justice and fairness. We hasten to add,

judiciary does not believe in misplaced sympathy.

16)In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this appeal,

without going into the merits of the case. In order to do complete

justice, we direct the respondents herein, not to dislodge the appellant

from the post of primary school teacher. This order of ours shall not

be treated as a precedent in any other case.

17)The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to

costs.

.......................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

.......................................J. [ H.L. DATTU ]

New Delhi, February 9, 2009.

6