2006 (1) TMI 625 - SC - Indian Laws

Meritorious Candidates Prevail: Court Upholds Administrative Service Seniority Order, Limits Pay Scale Advantage.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Versus C. LALITHA

The SC concluded that the respondent, already enjoying a higher pay scale, should not gain undue advantage over more meritorious candidates. The Court ... Validity of an amendment of the reservation policy of the State - Appointment to Group 'A' Service (Assistant Commissioner) - As per revised reservation policy, appointed as a Tehsildar - Karnataka State Public Service Commission (Commission) - HELD THAT:- In the order dated 15th March, 1994, this Court noticed that the Appellant had since been promoted to Class - I Post of Assistant Commissioner. As the Respondent was to be appointed in the said post with retrospective effect, a direction was issued to create a supernumerary post therefor as otherwise it was not necessary to issue any such direction. Furthermore, this Court directed that the Respondent should be placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976 meaning thereby the same post which she had been holding at the relevant point of time. She was held not to be entitled to any back wages therefor. The judgment of this Court dated 15th March, 1994 must be construed in the aforementioned backdrop. A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. But, it is also well-known that the judgment must be construed as if it had been rendered in accordance with law. It may be true that in the Appellant's application for review, more or less similar pleas were raised, but rejected, but, herein the same is not an issue as we are concerned only with construction of this Court's order dated 15th March, 1994. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees. The concept of justice is that one should get what is due to him or her in law. The concept of justice cannot be stretched so as to cause heart-burning to more meritorious candidates. Moreover, at the end of the day, the Respondent has got what could be given to her in law. As of now, she had already been enjoying a higher scale of pay than what she would have got if she was to join the post of Assistant Controller. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if she is allowed to continue in her post and direct the Appellant to consider her seniority in the Administrative Service in terms of the order of this Court dated 15th March, 1994 that she would be the last in the seniority list of the appointees in the post of Category I Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka Administrative Service). The Appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the amendment of the reservation policy.2. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's previous orders regarding the reservation policy.3. The respondent's claim for appointment as Assistant Commissioner.4. Merit and ranking considerations for the respondent's appointment.5. Seniority and consequential benefits for the respondent.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Amendment of the Reservation Policy:The primary issue in this appeal concerns the construction of an inter-parties order of the Supreme Court regarding the validity of an amendment to the reservation policy of the State. This was previously addressed in the case of N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 157], where the Court declared that the revised reservation policy was not applicable to selections initiated prior to the amendment.2. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's Previous Orders:The Supreme Court had directed the State Government to appoint the appellants on the posts of Tehsildars with retrospective effect and create supernumerary posts if no vacancies were available. The respondent, initially appointed as a Tehsildar, sought appointment as an Assistant Commissioner based on the revised reservation policy. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 15th March 1994, allowed the respondent's appeal, directing the State to create a supernumerary post for her appointment as Assistant Commissioner if no vacancies were available.3. The Respondent's Claim for Appointment as Assistant Commissioner:The respondent filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. She then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was allowed. The State sought the opinion of the Karnataka State Public Service Commission, which advised considering the respondent for the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts based on her ranking. The respondent did not accept this post and continued to pursue her claim for appointment as Assistant Commissioner.4. Merit and Ranking Considerations for the Respondent's Appointment:The respondent's application was dismissed by the Tribunal partly because another candidate, B.N. Mahesh, who was ranked higher, had a pending claim for the same post. The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition, directing the State to implement the Supreme Court's order. The appellant argued that merit should be the sole criterion for selection and that the respondent, being in the supplementary list, could not claim a post in the Administrative Service. The respondent contended that the Supreme Court's order should be construed in the context of her application before the Tribunal.5. Seniority and Consequential Benefits for the Respondent:The respondent had been working in the Revenue Department from the beginning. The Supreme Court's order dated 15th March 1994 should be construed in light of the decision in Devin Katti and the pleadings of the parties. The respondent's prayers before the Tribunal included a declaration that the State's action in denying benefits was illegal and discriminatory, and a direction to appoint her to Group A Services (Assistant Commissioners) with all consequential benefits. However, her name did not figure in the initial list for Category I posts, and she was placed in the additional list. The merit position of candidates was never questioned, and the respondent was currently working in a higher grade than she would have if appointed as Assistant Controller.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent had already been enjoying a higher scale of pay and should not derive undue advantage over more meritorious candidates. The Court directed that the respondent be allowed to continue in her current post, with her seniority in the Administrative Service being considered as per the order dated 15th March 1994, placing her last in the seniority list of appointees in the post of Category I Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka Administrative Service). The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no order as to costs.