D.M. PREMKUMARI versus THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1094 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1094 
A 
D.M. PREMKUMARI 
'!'-
v. 
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 806 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Article 142 - Complete Justice - Appellant belonged to 
Telugu Shetty Community falling under reserved Group 'B' 
category - She obtained job under Category 'B' - Later, 
authorities found that the said caste was transferred to 
D Category 'D' and held that she was not entitled to retain the 
post as a person belonging to Group 'B' Category - Held: 
. 
' 
Though Division Bench of High Court was right in holding that 
she was not entitled to retain the job - However, if her 
appointment is struck down it would cause great hardship to 
E her - It is not the case of employer that continuation of her 
service would cause prejudice to any one -To do complete 
justice, employer directed not to dislodge the appellant from 
the post held by her. 
Appellant belonged to "Telugu Shetty Communty". 
F She claimed reservation under category 'B' as provided 
under the clarification order passed by the Government. 
She was appointed under the said category as Primary 
School Teacher. After the selection, authorities sought for 
verification of the caste certificate from the District 
G Committee and found that the 'Telugu Balija' caste was 
transferred to Group 'D' category and as the appellant 
had sought reservation in Group 'B' category, she was 
:.t 
• 
not entitled to retain the post of Primary School Teacher 
as a person belonging to Group 'B' category. Accordingly 
H 
1094 
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL 
1095 
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS. 
~·-y 
it was held that appellant was not entitled to retain the 
A 
said post which was upheld by appellate authority. 
Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Single 
Judge allowed the same. Division Bench allowed the writ 
appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant took plea of her B 
pathetic financial condition. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD :1. Deciding this case on merits, and telling the c 
appellant that she has to go out of the employment, 
would cause great hardship and injustice to the 
appellant. [Para 11) [1098-G] 
2. The District Committee, which was asked to verify D 
~ ·~ 
the appellant's claim, is justified in informing the 
appointing authorities that, strictly going by the 
Government's orders issued in 1986, the appellant could 
not claim any reservation under Group 'B' category. 
However, the Single Judge, may have taken a very 
E 
sympathetic view of the matter, and came to the rescue 
of a poor primary school teacher. The Division Bench 
strictly applied the true interpretation that requires to be 
placed while constituting Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of 
i 
the Constitution. Therefore, there was no fault with the 
orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court 
F 
... 
also. [Para 13) [1099-B-D] 
3. This Court, while entertaining the special leave 
petition, had granted the status-quo order. By virtue of 
that order, the appellant is continuing to work as a 
primary school teacher. At this stage, if the appointment G 
: 
)I 
of the appellant is struck down and if she is now asked 
to seek employment elsewhere, it would cause great 
hardship and injustice, for the reason that by now she 
H 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A must have crossed the upper age limit for seeking public 
~ 
~~ 
employment and she may not get any employment 
anywhere. It is not the case of the other side also, that if 
the appellant's service is continued, it would cause any 
prejudice to any other applicant. [Para 14] [1099-D-F] 
B 
4. "The law is merciless", is a most frequently quoted 
saying. It has led people to mistakenly think that it is 
separated from feelings of righteousness. Such emotions 
~ 
as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist 
c 
in legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This is a mis-
understanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of 
justice and it works to maintain social justice and 
fairness. However, judiciary does not believe in misplaced 
sympathy. [Para 15] [1099-G-H; 1100-A] 
D 
5. In order to do complete justice, the respondents 
are directed not to dislodge the appellant from the post 
• 
4 
of primary school teacher. [Para 16] [1100-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 806 
E of 2009. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2006 of the 
Hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.