State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Gadilingappa & Ors

State of Karnataka & Ors. .... Appellants

Versus

Gadilingappa & Ors. .... Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. By this appeal, the appellants herein have challenged the Order

dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bangalore allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the

respondents herein. The High Court had, by the said Order, set aside

the decision of the KAT and allowed the claim of the respondents for

regularization of their services.

3. The relevant facts in brief are set out here. The respondents herein were appointed as Primary School Teachers on honorary basis in the

Government run schools. The respondents, however, did not possess

the T.C.H. qualification, which was the minimum prescribed

qualification for the post of a teacher. The respondents, in view of the

fact that they had rendered long continuous service as honorary

teachers without any break, claimed regularization of their services.

The appellant no.1 rejected the claim of the respondents on the

ground that any consideration for regularization or absorption can

be made only in regard to those candidates who possessed the

minimum prescribed qualification for the post of the teachers and as

the respondents did not posses the minimum prescribed

qualifications of T.C.H., they could not be considered for

regularization or absorption and that if they were regularized or

absorbed despite their not possessing the minimum prescribed

qualifications, it would amount to hostile discrimination and would

be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents herein approached the KAT. Their

applications were, however, rejected by the KAT. Against the decision

of the KAT, the respondents herein filed Writ Petition Nos. 45859-

891 of 2003 (S-KAT) before the Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bangalore. The Division Bench disposed of the

aforesaid Writ Petitions in terms of a judgment of that Court in Writ Petitions 33173-33220 of 2003 (S-KAT) thereby allowing the Writ

Petitions filed by the respondents herein.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

carefully perused the documents on record before us. The crux of the

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is

that the High Court had erred in allowing the claims of the

respondents for regularization of their services, for the respondents

herein did not fulfill the minimum required qualification for being

appointed as Primary School Teachers as they did not possess the

T.C.H. qualification.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents supported the decision of the High Court and

endeavoured to persuade us to uphold it by dismissing the present

appeal.

7. Admittedly, the respondents herein were working as Primary School

Teachers for a long period of time and they had rendered service as

such continuously without any break. However, after perusing the

relevant documents on record what comes to light is the fact that

none of the respondents had undergone the T.C.H. course, which

was the minimum prescribed qualification at the relevant time for

being appointed to the post of a teacher. Since the respondents did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification and because of

which their appointment was in contravention of the Cadre and

recruitment Rules, we are of the considered view that their

appointments were illegal appointments. Furthermore, neither has it

been brought to our notice nor was it specifically stated before the

High Court by the respondents in the Writ Petition Nos. 45859-891

of 2003 that the respondents belonged to the Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes category, which was the case of the petitioners in

Writ Petitions Nos. 33173-33220 of 2003 (S-KAT) as well the main

factor taken into consideration by the High Court of Karnataka while

allowing the claims of the petitioners therein for regularization of

their services. Besides, the Constitutional Bench had, in Secretary,

State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others

reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, clarified in explicit terms that the

decisions which run counter to the principles settled and the

directions given in the Uma Devi's (supra) case will stand denuded

of their status as precedents. Here, we also wish to point out that it

is a well settled principle of law that even if a wrong committed in an

earlier case, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, together with

the decisions of this Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) and Official

Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1, the claim of the respondents for regularization cannot be sustained.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present appeals

are entitled to be allowed, which we hereby do. Liberty is, however,

granted to the respondents to seek any other remedy under any

other law, if such a remedy and right is available to the respondents.

.....................J. [V.S. Sirpurkar]

......................J. [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

January 22, 2010 New Delhi.