Important point
Service jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.

Headnote:Service Law—Selections—Reservations—Amendment of Reservation Policy of State—Respondent appointed as Tehsildar—Application filed before Administrative Tribunal claiming appointment as Assistant Commissioner—Respondent had been working from the very beginning in the Revenue Department—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—It is only in the prayer portion, she prayed for being considered for appointment to Group ‘A’ Service (Assistant Commissioner) without there being any requisite pleadings therefor—Commission had issued a notification on 23.2.1976 showing names of candidates who became eligible to hold the posts of Assistant Commissioners being Category I Service—Name of respondent did not figure therein—Her name appeared at Sl.No. 2 in the Additional List of Category I Service—Interest of justice would be subserved if she is allowed to continue in her post in Karnataka Administrative Service.
Held : Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well-settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I Post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to. It is furthermore not in dispute that the correct position as regard her ranking amongst the successful candidates had not been brought to the notice of this court and if it had been so done, this Court would have found that she was entitled only to the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts. (Paras 26 and 27)
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). (Para 29)

Judgement Key Points

The Court emphasized that principles of justice require that no individual should gain an unfair or undue advantage over others who are in a similar position (!) (!) . At the same time, it is equally important that persons who are similarly situated are treated equally and consistently according to established rules and legal standards (!) (!) . This approach ensures fairness and prevents arbitrary or discriminatory treatment among employees who share comparable circumstances (!) (!) .

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Construction of an inter-parties order of this Court is in question in this appeal wherein the validity of an amendment of the reservation policy of the State which was the subject matter of a decision of this Court in N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 157], had been raised. This Court therein declared that the revised reservation policy was not applicable to selection initiated prior thereto and consequently directed.

“15.....In this view, we direct the State Government to appoint the appellants on the posts of Tehsildars with retrospective effect, but if 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 thereagainst 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 to Class-I post of Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka Administrative Service). If no vacancies are available, the State Government will create a supernumerary post for the appellant’s appointment. We further direct that for the purposes of seniority, the appellant shall be placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976, but she will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellant will be considered for promotion if otherwise found suitable. These directions will be carried out within three months from today.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.”

3. An application for review was filed by the Appellant herein inter alia on the ground that she did not have any legal right to the said post as the State of Karnataka did not intend to give effect to the additional select list prepared by the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (Commission), which was dismissed.

4. The State of Karnataka thereafter sought for the opinion of the Commission. The Commission by communication dated 24.6.1995 advised that as per the Respondent’s ranking in the General Merit Category I posts, she should be considered for the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts which is a Category I post, as the marks secured by her were below the marks secured by the candidates selected as Assistant Controller of Accounts. The Respondent did not accede thereto when such a post was offered to her.

5. After an unsuccessful attempt to obtain some order in a contempt proceedings instituted by her, the Respondent filed a fresh original application before the Administrative Tribunal which came to be dismissed whereupon she filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

6. We may at this stage notice that the ground upon which the Respondent’s application was dismissed by the Tribunal inter alia was that one B.N. Mahesh was at S.No. 1 of the said list whereas the Respondent figured at S.No. 2 and the former’s claim for appointment as Assistant Commissioner was thence pending before this Court. The matter of Shri B.N. Mahesh being Civil Appeal No. 3475 of 1998 was dismissed by this Court on 22.7.1998 on the ground that he moved the Tribunal at a b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 77

Important pointService jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.

Cases Referred (6)

Important point
Service jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.