M.T. PUTTALINGAPPA, MAJOR AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 19-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M.T. PUTTALINGAPPA, MAJOR AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 19, 1995 
[R.M. SAHA! AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Serilice Law: Mysore State Government Service (Recruitment of Local 
Candidates to Class III Posts) Rules, 1966 : 
C 
Mysore Labour Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966 
Seniority-Inspector of Factorie~omotees-Direct Recruits-On in-
itial appointment, promotees not possessing requisite qualifications prescribed 
under Ru/es-Regularisation order-Held initial infirmity was not 
D removed-Promotees held not senior to direct recruits. 
The appellants holding only diploma qualilications were appointed 
as Assistant Inspector (Factories) in 1963, because persons with 
pr.!scribed minimum qualifications viz. degree in Engineering were not 
available. Subsequently, when Mysore State Government Service (Recruit-
E ment of Local Candidates to Class III Posts) Rules, 1966 and Mysore 
Labour Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, came into force, whereunder 
the qualification was relaxed and diploma in Engineering was prescribed 
as minimum qualification, the Labour Commissioner passed an order 
dated 15.12.1967 regularising the services of the appellants. The appellants 
p were further promoted as Inspectors between 1969 and 1970 while the 
respondents were directly recruited as Inspectors in 1971. As in the grada-
tion list published in 1975, the appellant-promotees were showns as senior 
to the respondent· direct appointees, the latter challenged the initial 
appointment of the appellants before the Tribunal. During the pendency 
of these proceedings, the Government amended the rules retrospectively 
G in 1984 and provided diploma as qualification for Assistant Inspector of 
Factories. The Tribunal struck down the retrospective amendment of 
Rules as unconstitutional and held the regularisation order invalid and 
qua•hed the gradation list published in 1975. However, it regularised the 
services of the appellant, under Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct 
H Recruitment to class III Post) Special Rules, 1970. 
544 
M.T.PUTIALINGAPPAv. STATEOFKARNATAKA 
545 
In appeals to this Court, it was contended for the appellants that (i) A 
they having been regularised on 15.12.1967 the infirmity in their initial 
appointment stood removed and (ii) after the enforcement of 1966 Rules 
the appellants should be deemed to have been appointed in 1966. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The regularisation order dated 15.12.1967 depended on 
the Notification issued by the State Government on 17.8.1966 which per-
mitted a local candidate to be regularised provided he was not disqualified 
B 
for appointment under Mysore State Civil Service (General Recruitment) 
Rules, 1957 on the date of his appointment as local candidate. Since the C 
appellants were not possessed of the requisite qualification and were 
disqualified from being appointed as Assistant Inspector on the date they 
were appointed, this order did not come to their rescue and consequently 
they could not have been regularised by the Government. [547-G, H, 548-A] 
2. The Rules were framed for direct appointment. It could not be so D 
construed that a person appointed in 1963 may be deemed to have been 
appointed in 1966. The Tribunal has upheld the regularisation of the appel-
lants in 1970. But an Assistant Inspector could be promoted as Inspector 
only If he had completed three years' regular service .. The Tribunal, there-
fore, did not commit any error of law in recording the finding that the E 
appellants could not have been promoted either in 1969 and in any case they 
could not be treated as senior to the respondents. [548-B, C] 
T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, [1986] Supp. SCC 584, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1953-55 
F 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.88 of the Karnataka 
Adminb •• ative Tribunal, Bangalore in A.Nos. 1938-40 of 1986. 
M. Veerappa for the Appellant in C.A.No. 1950-52/89. 
S. Ravindra Bhat, Ms Kiran Jethanand and Naveen R. Nath for the 
Appellant in CA.No. 1953-55/89. 
S.S. Javeli and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents. 
G 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellants, who are promotees in the cadre of Inspectors and 
even higher posts in the Department under Factories and Boilers Branch 
in the State of Karnataka are aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal 
B quashing the gradation list as publi

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