TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no vacancies are available the State Government will create supernumerary posts of Tehsildars for appointing the appellants against those posts. We further direct that for purposes of seniority the appellants should be placed below last candidate appointed in 1976, but they will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellants will be entitled to promotion if otherwise found suitable." 2. The Respondent thereafter filed an original application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal claiming appointment as Assistant Commissioner although in terms of the said revised reservation policy she was appointed as a Tehsildar. The said original application having been dismissed, a Special Leave Petition was filed there against before this Court which was allowed by an order dated 15th March, 1994 in the following terms: "The appellant was admittedly selected and shown in the first list which is upheld by this Court in N.T. Bevin Katti and Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 157. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. We are informed that the appellant has since been promoted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the Tribunal directing the State to implement the order of this Court within four months without reference to the assessment of merit by the Commission as well as the fact that the Government had earlier offered appointment to her as Assistant Controller, State Accounts Department, Group 'A' on the Commission's recommendations. 7. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the State intended to implement this Court's judgment dated 15th March, 1994 where for only the recommendation of the Commission was sought for and pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof the notification dated 14.8.1995 was issued. It was argued that the effect of the order of this Court is to render the parties to the same position as if the reservation policy was not amended and if so construed, the Respondent having been placed in the supplementary list could not have laid any claim for any post in the Administrative Service. 8. It was urged that the merit should be the sole criteria for selection of the candidates and in that view of the matter, the State cannot be said to have misconstrued and misinterpreted the judgment of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken through the application filed by the Respondent before the Administrative Tribunal. No statement far less any claim grounded on legal right was raised to the effect that she was entitled to be appointed as Assistant Commissioner from the very inception. Such a plea could not have been taken. 13. In paragraph 6 of her application, she accepted that her name was included in the Additional List of Category - I Service. In sub-paragraph (e) of the said paragraph, she moreover accepted that her name had appeared at Sl. Nos. 26 and 5 respectively in Category - II Service (Tahsildars) now designated as Group 'B' Service omitting her name from Group 'A' Service. In sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 6 she stated: "By order dated 30.3.1990, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India struck down the government order dated 23.4.1976. Thus, with the setting aside of the Government order dated 23.4.1976, the applicants also became entitled to be appointed to Group 'A' Services on the basis of the first select list (Annexure A1). The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also ensures to the benefit of the applicants and accordingly the applicants became entitl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if the name of the Respondent was to be included in the Assistant Commissioner from the General Merit Category, then cases of six more candidates, namely, A.C. Suryaprakash, C. Vasumathi, V. Mohan Kumar, M. Vishwanatha, K.C. Ramamurthy and B.N. Mahesh, being above her, were also required to be considered. It is, furthermore, not in dispute that those who had been offered the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts in 1993 are currently working as Joint Controller. Only one person, Shri M.V. Munirathnappa has been promoted as Additional Controller of State Accounts on 22.5.1997. The merit position of the candidates, as noticed herein before, had never been questioned and even now has not been disputed. The Respondent, on her own showing, has been presently working in Karnataka Administrative Service, Group 'A', Super-Selection Post in the scale of pay of Rs. 13820-17220. There are 62 posts in the Selection Grade and 45 posts in the Super-Selection Grade. The post of Controller is only one whereas the number of posts of Additional Controller is 9 and that of Joint Controller is 50. 17. The Respondent herself in her additional affidavit stated: "That it is directed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 21. 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. 22. In Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai [(2005) 4 SCC 772], this Court held : "A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. A judgment, it is trite, must be construed upon reading the same as a whole. For the said purpose the attendant circumstances may also be taken into consideration." [See also Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Others (2005) 4 SCC 649] 23. In P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Others [(2004) 11 SCC 672], this Court held : ....