Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice V.S Sirpurkar, Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2010
Facts of the Case: The respondents herein were appointed as Primary School Teachers on honorary basis in the Government run schools. The respondents 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 could 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 possess 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. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents approached the KAT. Their applications were, however, rejected by the KAT. Against the decision of the KAT, the respondents filed Writ Petition 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 thereby allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents herein.
Judgment: The crux of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants was that the High Court had erred in allowing the claims of the respondents for regularization of their services, for the respondents did not fulfill the minimum required qualification for being apppointed as Primary School Teachers as they did not possess the T.C.H. qualification. On the other hand, the learned counsel who appeared for the respondents supported the decision of the High Court and endeavoured to persuade the Supreme Court to uphold it by dismissing the present appeal. Admittedly, the respondents 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, the Court was of the considered view that their appointments were illegal appointments. Furthermore, neither had it been brought to the notice nor was it specifically stated before the High Court by the respondents in the Writ Petition that the respondents belonged to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category, which was the case of the petitioners in Writ Petitions (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 (2006) 4 SCC 1, clarified in explicit terms that the decisions which ran counter to the principles settled and the directions given in the Uma Devi’s (supra) case will stand denuded of their status as precedents. The Court also pointed out that it was a well settled principle of law that even if a wrong committed in an earlier case, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.
Decision: 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 (2008) 10 SCC 1, the claim of the respondents for regularization could not be sustained. The present appeals were allowed. Liberty was, however, granted to the respondents to seek any other remedy under any other law, if such a remedy and right was available to the respondents.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS