STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus B. SUVARNA MALINI AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 04-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
B. SUVARNA MALINI AND ANR. 
JANUARY 4, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Karna/aka State Civil Services (Absorption of Persons ll'orking as 
C Part-Time Lecturers in the Kamataka Education Departme/1/ of College 
Education) Special Rules, 1996: 
Rule 2(b){iii)-Certain persons 11•orking as part-lime lectures for 10 
to 20 years-Due to in action State Government their services not of 
D regularised-Ultimately, High Power Commillee recommended their 
regulart~wtion and Absorption Rules brought into force-However, High 
Court struck down the Rules a discriminatory-Correctness of-Held: 
Absolute equality among human beings is a physical impossibilif)~Arl. 14 
guarantees similarity of treatment as contra-distinguished ji-om identical 
treatment-The Absorption Rules are made to solve a human problem-
E Hence, High Court erred in striking down the Rules-Constitution of India, 
1950, Arts. 14 and 226. 
F 
G 
The appellant-State had employed part-time lecturers in different 
colleges for periods varying from ten to twenty years. Due to inaction of the 
appellant these lecturers were not regularised and treated as regular servants. 
Ultimately, a High Power Committee recommended that these lacturers could 
be regularised as a one-time measure and, therefore, the Karnataka State 
Ci\•il Services (Absorption of Persons working as Part-Time Lecturers in 
the Karnataka Education Department of College Education) Special Rules, 
1996 were brought into force. 
The respondents filed a public interest litigation before the State 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid Rules. The Tribunal 
struck down the Rules on the grounds that the Rules violated Article 14 and 
sought to legalise back-door entrants. The High Court affirmed the decision 
H of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 
72 
+ 
• 
STATE v. B.S. MALIN! 
73 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: t. The State Government has been regulating the mvde of 
appointment of part-time lecturers and it is not correct that there has been 
A 
no process of selection before such appointment of part-time lecturers. Even 
though the Public Service Commission had not made the selection yet there 
was a process of selection and unqualified people were not appointed as part- B 
time lacturers. 179-E-F) 
2.1. The concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of 
absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All 
that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment as contra-distinguished 
from identical treatment. Equality before law means that among equals the C 
law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes 
should be treated alike. Equality before law does not mean that things, which 
are different, shall be treated as though they arc-the same. It means denial 
of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like. The legislature 
as well as the executive Government, while dealing with diverse problems D 
arising out of an infinite variety of human relations, must of necessity have 
the power of making special laws, to attain any particular object and to 
achieve that object, it must have the power of selection or classification of 
persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation 
or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination. 179-H; 
80-A-B) 
E 
2.2. When the Absorption Rules are examined from the aforesaid point 
and when the circumstances under which the said rules were made to solve 
a human problem and that the Rules made were put to objection to the 
general public and even the Public Service Commission was consulted and 
finally placed before the State Legislature to have its concurrence, are all F 
considered, it is clear that the High Court committed error in striking down 
the Rules on the ground that they are discriminatory. 180-C-D) 
KS. P. College stop-gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karna/aka, 
AIR 11992) SC 677, held inapplicable. 
Ashwani Kumar's case. AIR (1997) SC 1628, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 27 of 
2001. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3. 99 of the Karnataka High Court H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] l S.C.R. 
A in W.P. No. 11479of1998. 
With 
C.A. Nos. 28-47 of2001. 
B 
Kapil Sibal, P.N. Mishra, L. Nageswara Rao N. Ganpathy, D.K. Garg, V. 
Laxminrayan, A. Srivastava, Ms. Ritu Puri and D. Mahesh Babu for the 
appearing pa

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