LexS. NAGARAJ AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- - S. NAGARAJ AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. AUGUST 26, 1993 [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, R.M. SAHAI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2-Binding effect of an order passed by Supreme Cowt-Order improperly obtained-No cowt or auth01ity A B can ignore it-Any doubt or ambiguity can be removed by court which passed C the orde1~No authority can assume to itself role of substituting it or clarifying and modifying it according to its own understanding-Order of Supreme Cowt not to be taken lightly. Constitution of India-A1t. 137-Supreme Court Rules-Order XL Rule I-Review-Recalling or reviewing its own order-Power of Court to remove D e17or. Service Law-Possessing minimum qualification prescribed under mles--does not mean appointment on that post-No employee can claim higher post or scale of pay commensurate with his qualificatiort-Appoint- E ment to a post which carries lower qualificatiort-Whether by itself,· amounts to exploitatlon-Held, No-It is not violative of any constitutional guarantee or principle. Service Law-Equal pay for equal work-Doctrine of.-Applicability- Not to be unduly stretched to fntstrate entire process of selection and appoint- F ment in Government Se1vice. Service Law-Kamataka Civil (Special Recrnitment) Rules 1982-Rule 3 as amended in 1987-Stipendimy Graduate Emplayment Scheme, 1977-Reservation of 40% post for stipendiary graduates in direct recmits G quota-Needs a fresh look-Rules amended in 1987 are against public policy. Service Law-Kamataka Civil (Special Recrnitment) Rules, I982- Stipendia1y Graduate Employment Scheme, 1977-Reservation of 40% posts for stipendiary graduates in direct recrnits quota-Claim of regularisa- tion-State's failure to b1ing correct facts on record-Order of Supreme Cowt H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A to absorb all stipendia1y graduates in scale of First Division Assistants placing them in higher scale amongst Assistants-Reconsideration-Order recalled-All stipendia1y graduates covered by order to be appointed as Second Division Assistants in Grade 'C' only. B Constitution 0Flndia-A1ticles 14 and 16-Scheme framed to help educated unemployed-Commendable-Rule which results in undue benefit to one class to the exclusion of others-pennits ently in State Civil Service without competition-Exploitation by State in violation of Alt. 39-Kamataka Civil (Special Recmitment) Rules 1982 as amended in 1987-Validity of-Not challenged-Rules being not in consonance with constitutional spilit-Any C appointments made under these mles--Not open to challenge on ground that they are not in consonance with constitutional spilit. In 1977 the Government of Karnataka framed a sheme for employ- ment of unemployed graduates, post graduates and diploma-holders with D a view to relieve unemployment among them. The scheme was made applicable to persons coming from families having less than Rs. 3600 annual income and no earning member in the family. The stipend was raised finally to Rs 640 p.m. from Rs. 150 p.m. After expiry of nearly four and half years the Government framed Karnataka Civil (Special Recruit- ment) Rules, 1982, reserving 50% of the direct recruitment vacancies E existing on the date the rules came into force, to be filled by stipendiary graduates and local candidates in various categories of posts which in- cluded First and Second Division Assistants in State Civil Services by a competitive examination to be conducted by the Public Service Commis- sion. These rules were amended in 1987 and three important changes were F made. The rules became applicable to any category of posts in group 'C' in the State Civil Services, 50% was bifurcated and 40% was reserved for stipendiary graduates and 10% for local candidates, and the requirement of examination or interview was done away with. The Association of Stipendiary Graduates filed writ petitions seeking G declaration that they were regular employees under the rules. Their claim was not accepted by the Tribunal as they having been appointed under a special scheme and not against any post in a cadre they were not members of any service of the State against sanctioned strength. On regularisation it was held that it could be done by the State only, and. not by court. This H order was challenged by filing SLP. The State jfid not file any reply within - NAGARAJ v. STATE 3 time allowed by the court. This Court passed an interi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.