LexRAGHAVENDRA RAO ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 223 RAGHAVENDRA RAO ETC. A ; V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Civil Appeal Nos. 907-936 Of 2009 FEBRUARY 12, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986: Regularization - Claim for, under ~ I' 1986 Rules - By employees appointed by Tehsildar - Held: Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to appoint in terms of Rules - c Offers of appointment made in favour of employee having been appointed by a person who had no authority, must be held to be nullity - Service Law. Service law : Appointment -Public appointment - Claim D in public service based on hereditary right - Held: Is uncon- -+ stitutional. -~ Absorption - Right to - Held: Merely because an em- ployee continued in service under the cover of an order of the Court would not entitle him to right to be absorbed or made E permanent in service. Res judicata - Principle of - Held: Applicable to writ pro- ceedings also. -_, Appellants were appointed as PatwarisNillage Ac- F countants by the Tehsildarl Assistant Commissioner. They prayed for regularisation of their services in terms of provisions of Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitmentto Class-Ill Posts) (Special) Rules, 1973. Their prayer was dismissed by the Tribunal. SLPs filed there G against were also dismissed. Relying on the observations made in some other SLPs that it would be open for em- ployees to represent before the State of Karnataka for regularisation in terms of Karnataka Civil Services (Spe- 223 H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A cial Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986, which came into force w.e.f. 4.7.1986, appellant requested the State to regularize their services under 1986 Rules. The State rejected their prayer stating that the 1986 Rules were not applicable to their cases as they were appointed by B the Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner whereas in terms · of the 1986 Rules, the appointing authority was the Deputy Commissioner. An observation was made by Tribunal in another case -.ii 1 t c that Patwaris come within the definition of local candidates ~ and are entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of 1986 rules. Relying on that, appellants again filed application for regularization under 1986 Rules. Tribunal allowed the applications. Writ petition thereagainst was D allowed by High Court. Review petitions were also dis- missed. Hence these appeals. ~- Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In SLPs relating to another case, leave was granted by this Court to avail any other remedy available . E .. only to those petitioners who were not paid their salary . for the period during which they worked as Accountants. The claim of the appellants is, thus, barred under the prin- ciples of res judicata/constructive res judicata, the earlier F judgment having attained finality. It is now a well settled principle of law that the principle of res judicata applies also to the writ proceedings. [Paras 12, 13] [ 229-C; 230-D] Secretary, State of Kamataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 sec 1 - referred to G · 2. Any claim in a public service on the basis of a he- reditary claim is unconstitutional. The appellants claimed \ their right to be appointed and/or consequential regular- ization in the services on the basis of the hereditary right. H They rightly were held to be not entitled thereto. An en- RAGHAVENDRA RAO ETC. V 225 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. deavour had been made to show that appellants were A appointed by Tahsildar. It has, however, not been denied that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to appoint in terms of the Civil Services Rules. They, thus, having been ap- pointed by a person who had no authority, the offers of appointment made in their favour must be held to be nul- B lities. Such illegal appointments cannot be brought within the purview of Rule 3(2) of the 1986 Rules. In terms thereof only appointment not made in accordance with the Rules would attract Rule 3(2). The same would not mean that any appointment made by any other authority. would also C come within the purview thereof. [Paras 13, 15] [ 230-A: 231-A, 8] State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. PM. Bhaskara Gowda & Ors. (2004) 1SCC106; Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao vs. State of A.PAIR 1961 SC 564 - relied on. D 3. It is now a well-settled principle of law that merely because an employee had continued under cover of an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.