STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus C. LALITHA

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 31-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' .\ 
' 
, 
... 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
v 
C. LALITHA 
JANUARY 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment-Entitlement to---Respondent appointed as 
Tehsildar in terms of revised reservation policy-Her name was included in 
the Additional List of Category I Service-However, her name did not figure 
in the notification showing names of candidates eligible to hold post of 
Assistant Commissioner-She filed application before Tribunal claiming 
appointment as Assistant Commissioner-Tribunal dismissed her claim-In 
SLP to Supreme Court her claim was accepted by an order dated I 5. 03. I 994-
There were many persons who were above her both amongst General Category 
as well as Reserved Category Candidates in the merit List-She had not 
questioned her merit position-As per her ranking in the General Merit 
Category I· Posts, she was entitled to the post of Assistant Controller of 
Accounts-Presently working in Karna/aka Administrative Service, Gr. A, 
Super Selection Post-Correct position as regards her ranking amongst the' 
successful candidates had not been brought to the notice of this Court when 
it passed an order dated 15. 03.1994 allowing her ~/aim-Held, State cannot 
be directed to implement order of this Court dated 15.03.1994.-Further 
held, interest of justice would be sub-served if she was allowed to continue 
in her post . 
Judgment, interpretation of-Held, a judgment is not required to be 
read as a statute-It must be construed as if it had been rendered in 
accordance with law-It must be read in its entirety for ascertaining its true 
intent and purport. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
Service Law-Pleadings-Respondent prayed for appointment as 
Assistant Commissioner without any requisite pleadings therefor-She had G 
never challenged her merit position-No plea as to her legal right to the said 
>-., 
post ever made before the Tribunal-Held, she can not be allowed to take 
such plea now. 
971 
H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 I S.C.R. 
A 
Service Jurisprudence-Parity in Employment--Held, all persons 
similarly situated should be treated similarly though only one person has 
approached the Court--Juslice demands that a person should not be allowed 
to derive any undue advantage over other employees. 
State of Karnataka made an amendment in the reservation policy of the 
B state. In N. T Devin Katti's case, this court declared that the revised reservation 
policy was not applicable to selection initiated prior thereto. In terms of the 
revised reservation policy, respondent was appointed as a Tehsildar. Her name 
was included in the Additional List of Category I Service. Upon revision of 
the Additional List, she had been placed at Sr. No. 26 of Category II Service, 
C which was meant for Tehsildars. Her name did not figure in the notification 
showing names of candidates who became eligible to hold posts of Assistant 
Commissioners being Category I Service. As per her ranking in the merit 
list, there were many persons who were above her both amongst General 
Category and also Reserved Category. There were six more candidates in the 
General Merit Category who were above her in ranking. Her application before 
• 
D the Tribunal claiming appointment as Assistant commissioner was dismissed. 
~ 
Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst was allowed by an order dt. 
15.03.1994 in C. lalitha case. It was held that the respondent was admittedly 
selected and shown in the first list which was upheld by the SC in N. T Devin 
Katti case !this view was erroneous as she was not actually shown in the first 
E list but was included in the Additional list of Category I Service!. Thereafter, 
she was offered the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts which is a 
Category I post as per her ranking in the General Merit Category I posts. 
She, however, refused the offer. She filed a fresh application before the 
Tribunal, which came to be dismissed whereupon she filed a writ petition 
before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition directing the state 
F to implement the order of the Supreme Court in C. lalitha case within four 
months. State appealed to this Court. 
Appellant pleaded that the effect of the order of this Court is to render 
the parties to the same position as if the reservation policy was not amended 
and if so construed, she having been placed in the supplementary list could 
G not have laid any claim for any post in the Administrative Service. It was also 
urged that meri

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