STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus G. HALAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 26-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
v. 
G. HALAPPA AND ORS. 
. APRIL 26, 2002 
B 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Karnataka Education Department Services (Recruitment to Secondary 
C School Assistant Grade-II Cadre and Physical Education Teachers Grade-I) 
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 1983 : 
Appointments-On contract basis-Till regular incumbent selected and 
reports on duty-Salary less than the minimum of Pay Scale-Service not 
D counted for the purpose of further service in Government-Analogy between 
the contract employees and local candidates whose services are regularly 
absorbed could not be drawn-Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of Persons 
Appointed on Contract Basis in the category of posts of Primary School 
' 
Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Government Junior College-Lecturers. 
First Grade College Lecturers, Lecturers in Polytechnics, Lecturers in 
E Government Engineering Colleges, into State Civil Services) (Special) Rules, 
1990. 
F 
Appellant-State appointed local candidates by making special provisions 
in the Karnataka Education Department Services (Recruitment to Secondary 
School Assistant Grade-II Cadre and Physical Education Teachers Grade-I) 
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 1983; on the other hand respondents were 
recruited on contract basis on certain terms for a period of one year or until 
the regplar incumbent reports for duty whichever is earlier. The candidates 
appointed on contract basis would get consolidated salary equal to Rs. 10 less 
than the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post. These respondents 
G were subsequently regularly recruited to Government services as Teachers 
and Lecturers. Thereafter, the State framed certain rules for absor~tion of 
contract Teachers/Lecturers on certain terms. However, it was made clear 
that they would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary. It was also 
provided therein that the initial basic pay of a contract teacher absorbed under 
the Rules shall be fixed in the scale of pay of the category of the post to which 
H 
500 
-
! )i-
• 
-
-
STATEv.G.HALAPPA 
501 
he has been appointed at a stage equal to the basic pay that he would have A 
drawn ifhe had been appointed to such post as regular candidate, with effect 
from the date of his appoilttment as a contract teacher. The contract 
employees moved the Central Administrative Tribunal to treat them as local 
candidates as under the rules local candidates have been conferred some 
additional pay benefits including pay protection. Tribunal relied on its earlier B 
Judgment in Parmeshwarappa 's case and decided the case in favour of contract 
employees by treating them at par with local candidates under Rules 41-A of 
the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Hence appeal by the State. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The appointments to which the contract employees joined C 
are very precarious appointments, the same being terminable at the end of 
one year or earlier than even before the regular recruitment takes place. It 
was made clear that their salary would be fixed at less than the minimum of 
the pay scale attached to the post and their service as rendered would not be 
counted for the purpose of further service in Government. If this position is D 
clear, then an analogy could not have been drawn between contract employees 
and the local candidates whose services are regularly absorbed. [504-C-E] 
2. Tctinvoke Rule 41A ofKarnataka Civil Services Rules would be out 
of place in a case of this nature because the intendment of such Rules is that 
if a person has been appointed as a local candidate and if he is likely to be E 
absorbed in a regular service but in a different post, certain benefits are given 
to him. That is not the situation in the present case. Similarly, in the case of 
a regularly appointed candidate if he is appointed in another post, continuity 
would be maintained so far as emoluments are concerned. Such a situation 
in the present case will not arise at all because it is not the continuation of F 
the original appointment made which is on a contract basis and contract comes 
to an end either on the expiry of the term or when a regular candidate reports 
on duty. Particularly when the contract itself makes it clear that the service 
shall not be counted for any purpose, the claim of the respondents could not 
have been brought under Rule 41A at all. [504-E, F, G] 
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, [1995] 4 SCC 683 

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