DEEPA GOURANG MURDESHWAR KATRE versus THE PRINCIPAL, V.A.V. COLLEGE OF ARTS & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 13-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DEEPA GOURANG MURDESHWAR KATRE 
v. 
THE PRINCIPAL, V.A.V. COLLEGE OF ARTS & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 136-Appointment of a General category 
candidate on temporary basis to a Reserved post due to non-availability 
C of required candidate every year for five successive academic years-Writ 
Petition by appointee to de-reserve the post and regularise her services as 
per Government Resolutions-Writ Petition disposed of on the basis of false 
misrepresentation by University-Review petition by appointee was also 
dismissed on misrepresentation-Correctness of-Held, on facts on record, 
University made false misrepresentation before High Court-Hence directions 
D given to regularise the services of the appointee. 
Appellant was appointed by respondent no. I - college for the post of 
English lecturer on temporary basis. For the next academic year, the 
respondent gave a newspaper advertisement for filling up the vacancy of the 
post of English lecturer, which was reserved for Schedule Caste candidate. 
E The appellant, who applied in General category, was appointed to the post on 
temporary basis for the academic year since no backward class candidate 
applied for the post. As required under a Government Resoiution, the 
respondent issued an advertisement every academic year for filling up the 
post with a Schedule Caste candidate for the next four academic years but the 
p appellant was appointed every time on temporary basis for the academic years 
since no backward class candidate applied for the post. For the sixth year, as 
per the Government Resolution, the respondent issued a sixth advertisement 
stating that if no eligible backward candidate is available, then the post would 
be de~reserved and would be filled up by a General category candidate. Since 
no Sch~duled Caste candidate applied even for the sixth year, the Selection 
G Committee of the respondent college gave a report to the university stating 
that no backward class candidate had applied for the post. 
H 
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court to de-reserve the 
post and confirm her s.ervices as per the Government Resolution. The 
516 
) 
.. _ 
DEEP A GOURAi\'G /\IURDESH\\' AR KATRE v. PRl!\CIPr\L. V.A.V. COLL£GE OF ARTS 
517 
. .._,. 
respondent- university filed an affidavit before the High Court contending A 
that an advertisement for the sixth academic year had not yet been published 
and hence the post cannot be de-reserved. Relying on the affidavit of the 
University, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing directions 
to the respondents to publish the sixth advertisement and fill up the post in 
accordance with the Government Resolution. The appellant filed a Review B 
petition before the High Court contending that the University had made a false 
statement, which was an error apparent on the face of the record. The High 
Court dismissed the Review petition on the contention of the university that 
_.... 
~ 
no interviews could he held for the sixth advertisement in view of its stay order. 
• 
The appellant filed another writ petition before the High Court which was 
dismissed as not maintainable. 
c 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court 
dismissed the writ petition by relying upon fraudulent misrepresentations 
made by the university; and that, on facts, the sixth advertisement had already 
been issued, interviews were held, a non-availability report of a backward class 
candidate was issued by the College and the report was accepted by the D 
university. 
" 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
f 
HELD: 1.1. It is a fit case for interference by this court in exercise of 
the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of the 
misrepresentations made by the respondent-university and considering the E 
long service rendered by the appellant to the respondent-college at a time when 
no other candidate was willing to take the assignment. An irreparable injury 
would be caused to the appellant if the prayer made in the appeal is not grnnted. 
[Paras 28 and 29[ [529-D-Ef 
.... 
~· 
1.2. If a case of fraud or mis-representation of such a dimension is F 
discovered that the very basis of the order passed by a Court oflaw is affected, 
the court can recall it~ order. The power to recall an order founded upon fraud 
and mis-representation is an inherent power of the Court. The High Court 
was mi

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