PRAKASH K. AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 30-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRAKASH K. AND ANR. 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law. 
Recruitment of teuchers by Servi'ce Commission of Kamatakrr-Ap-
C pointment made in excess of 50% of quota reserved for backward class~s and 
weaker sections of society-R.ecrnitment completed prior to 17.11.1993 and 
challenged on 15.6.1995--Held, Administrative Tribunal was right in its con-
clusion that appellants belatedly approached the Tribunal when all the ap-
pointments had been made and the teachers were workin15As regards the 
appointment on the vacant posts, the Tribunal has pointed out that unless 
D merits of appellants are considered by the Service Commission vis-a-vis other 
eligible candidates and the selected candidate no directions for appointment 
can be given--The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified 
warranting inteiference-Besides, the view is consistent with philosophy of 
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitutipn of India. 
E 
Constitution of India. 
Articles 14 and 16( 1 )-Recrnitment of candidates of backward classes 
and weaker sections challenged belatedly-Effect of 
F 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors., [1992) Supp. 2 SCR 454 and 
G 
Nagaraja and Ors. v. Director General and Inspector General of Police in 
Kamataka, Bangalore and others., (1995) K.S.L.J. 541, cited. 
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13112-13 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.96 of the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, in A.Nos. 3034-35 of 1995. 
Rama Jois and S.N. Bhat for the Petitioners. 
H 
E.C. Vidyasagar and K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents. 
102 
PRAKASH v. STATE 
103 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
A 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned coupsel for the parties. 
These appeals arise from the order of the Karnataka Administrative B 
Tribunal made on February 27, 1996 in OA No. 3034- 35/95. The recruit-
ment for the post of teacher was completed prior to November 17, 1993 
and teachers came to be appointed. When the same was challenged, the 
Tribunal found that they were in excess of the 50% of the quota reserved 
for the backward classes and weaker sections of the society. But the C 
Tribunal declined to interfere with the order on the ground that the 
appellants belatedly approached the Tribunal on June 15, 1995 by which 
time all the appointments had come to be made and the teachers were 
working. The Tribunal has pointed out thus: 
"The present Applications were filed on 15.6.1995. The Applicants D 
question the appointments to the public offices made by.!'the State 
Government. Any challenge to the appointments by the ';tate 
Government should be made at the earliest. Any !aches on. the part 
of the challenger to the appointments is a ground to ··~fuse the 
relief. Upsetting of the appointments at this belated stage would E 
also up-set the administrative machinery and it is not -in the public 
interest that the appointments made at least a year and six months 
prior to the filing of the Applications should be set aside. 
It is true that the reservation in excess of 50% is unconstitutional. 
The recruitment process no doubt was substantially over by the F 
time the Supreme Court announced its judgment in Indira 
Sawhney's case. Though the select list was prepared subsequently, 
in all fairness the State Government should have re-done the select 
list in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. But the 
question is whether we can, at this stage, set at naught those 
appointments on the ground of unconstitutionality. The private G 
Respondents have already joined the service. Public interest re-
quires that the experience gained by the private Respondents 
should not be lost to the public. The relief to be granted by this 
Tribunal is entirely discretionary. Though Mr. Bhagwath contends 
that the Applicants have approached this Tribunal within one year H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
of the date of the cause of action, that may not be technically 
correct. The cause of action arose when the select list was prepared 
which they knew as unconstitutional even as early as on 17.11.1993. 
This apart, we are of the firm view that the limitation provided 
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, does 
not come in the way of exercising our discretion and reject an 
Application, if the Application suffers from !aches. This is the view 
we have already 

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