SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar & M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
B.T. Krishnamurthy - Appellant (s)
Versus
Sri Basaveswara Education Society & Ors. - Respondent (s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2948 OF 2013
(Arising out of the Special Leave Petition (C) No.27031 of 2011)
Sri Basaveswara Education Society & Anr. - Appellant (s)
Versus
T.D. Viswanath & Ors. - Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2949 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.27130 of 2011)
Decided On : 08-04-2013
Constitution Of India,1950 – advertisement - appointment on post of Lecturer in History - Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order dated 20 0f 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 52603 of 2003 and 54201 of 2003 and the order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal in Respondent No.1 T.D. Viswanath, in Civil Appeal arising out SLP(C) No. 27130 of 2011 (in short respondent no.1) alleged to have been appointed as a Lecturer in Sri Basaveswara Junior College (in short, ‘the college’) run by Sri Basaveswara Education Society (in short, ‘the Society’). According to the said respondent No.1, since the date of appointment i.e. 28.06.1990 he continuously worked as a Lecturer in the College run by the Society. It was alleged that all of a sudden on 22.07.1995 the Society/College issued oral directions directing respondent No.1 not to attend the College and take classes on the ground that his services have been terminated -It appears that on 19.06.1995, the Society issued an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in History in the said College –Held, appellant is out of service. The date of his retrenchment is shown as 22.7.1995, by the appellant, whereas the management disputes that aspect. On the basis of the material discussed above, I am constrained to hold that the appellant was in service till 22.7.1995, on which date he was asked not to come to the college again. Thus that become the material date for decision about his reinstatement. The appellant will be entitled to reinstatement retrospectively from that date and as it is shown that such a situation was created due to acts of the management, the management cannot absolve itself from discharging its consequential liabilities. The consequential liabilities to pay are loss of pay to the appellant from that date. Thus, the appellant would also be entitled to reinstatement in service as a lecturer in history from 23.7.1995 and he will also be entitled to emoluments, which he was entitled to receiveabsence of any appointment letter, issued in favour of the respondent as he was temporary/part-time lecturer in the College, there cannot be any legitimate expectation for his continuing in the service.. This was the reason that when in the years 1995 and 1996, two persons were appointed one after the other on the post of Lecturer in History, the respondent did not challenge the said appointments. Even assuming that the respondent was permitted to work in the College as part-time lecturer for some period, the action of the management of the college asking him to stop doing work cannot be held to be punitive. The termination simplicitor is not per se illegal and is not violative of principles of natural justice –appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
M.Y.EQBAL,J.
Leave granted.
2. Since these two appeals arose out of the common judgment and order dated 11.07.2011 passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1812 of 2006 and 1865 of 2006, the same have been heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order dated 20 0f 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 52603 of 2003 and 54201 of 2003 and the order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.16 of 1996.
4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:-
5. Respondent No.1 T.D. Viswanath, in Civil Appeal arising out SLP(C) No. 27130 of 2011 (in short respondent no.1) alleged to have been appointed as a Lecturer in Sri Basaveswara Junior College (in short, ‘the college’) run by Sri Basaveswara Education Society (in short, ‘the Society’). According to the said respondent No.1, since the date of appointment i.e. 28.06.1990 he continuously worked as a Lecturer in the College run by the Society. It was alleged that all of a sudden on 22.07.1995 the Society/College issued oral directions directing respondent No.1 not to attend the College and take classes on the ground that his services have been terminated.
6. It appears that on 19.06.1995, the Society issued an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in History in the said College. Pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent No.1 applied for the said post and was called for interview, but he was not selected and in his place one T.S. Malleshappa was selected for the said post. The said T.S. Malleshappa joined the said post of Lecturer, but within a year he left the service and joined M.Phil Course. Subsequently, the Society issued another advertisement dated 03.05.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer (History). Again after interview, one R. Siddegora was appointed as a Lecturer (History) for a period of two years. In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition being No. 31770 of 1995 before the Karnataka High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Society of the College to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits and further direction was sought not to make any appointment in his place. The said writ petition was dismissed on 29.10.1996 by the High Court on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal available before the Education Appellate Tribunal (in short, the ‘Tribunal’).
7. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging his termination/removal from the post of Lecturer. Along with the said appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. Pending appeal, the Tribunal passed interim order dated 17.12.1996, restraining the Society and the Principal of the College from appointing any person to the post of Lecturer.
8. In the year 1998, Director of Pre-University Education Board by communication dated 24.08.1998 asked the Society to fill up the remaining three posts from reserved category in order to obtain the approval for the teaching staff. Consequently, posts were advertised and one B.T. Krishnamurthy, who is appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition No. 27031 of 2011 was appointed as Lecturer.
9. However, the Tribunal by order dated 03.12.2002, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and directed the Society to reinstate respondent No.1 in service w.e.f. 23.07.1995 and to pay him all pecuniary benefits w.e.f. 23.07.1995. The Tribunal further directed the Society to regularize the services of respondent No1. The Tribunal further declared the appointment of B.T. Krishnamurthy as illegal and improper.
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein - the Society and B.T. Krishnamurthy filed separate writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions by j
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.