Navin Sinha

The seminal reference to be answered is, if (2010)9 SCC 247 (The State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari) makes a departure from the distinction between an illegal and irregular appointment as held in (2006)4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) PLJR (SC)363] (State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi) for purposes of regularisation. If it does, shall it constitute a precedent?

2. The petitioners in both applications were appointed on Class-IV posts by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer on the 30.12.1989 and 30.10.2001 respectively. The appointment letter of the former stated that on sympathetic consideration of his application he was being appointed in temporary capacity. That of the latter stated consequent to the letters of the In-Charge Medical Officer, he was being appointed in special circumstances and permitted to work as Sweeper (because he belonged to the same caste) but would have to face the selection committee at a subsequent date. They were terminated on 14.6.2001 and 30.10.2001 respectively on the ground that their appointments were illegal.

3. CWJC No. 11713 of 2003 was filed by the former. CWJC No. 11651 of 2002 by the latter was allowed on 8.9 2003 holding that terminatio