Advocates:
E. C. VIDYA SAGAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 919 of 2002

PETITIONER:

State of Karnataka & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

C. Lalitha

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2006

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT:

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\005In 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."

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

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."

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.

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 \026 I posts,

she should be considered for the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts

which is a Category \026 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.

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.

We may at this stage notice that the ground upon which