STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus GADILINGAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 22-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 815 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
v. 
GADILINGAPPA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 819-851 of 2010) 
JANUARY 22, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law: Regularisation - Minimum prescribed 
qualification for the post of teacher - Not fulfilled - Claim for C 
regularisation - Held: Not maintainable. 
Precedent: Wrong committed in an earlier case - Held: 
Same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. 
Respondents were appointed as primary school D 
teachers on honorary basis in the Government run 
schools. They, however, did not possess the T.C.H. 
qualification, which was the minimum prescribed 
qualification for the post of a teacher. The respondents, 
in view of the fact that they had rendered long 
E 
continuous service as ~onorary teachers without any 
break, claimed regularization of their services. Their claim 
was rejected on the ground that they did not possess the 
minimum prescribed qualification of T.C.H. High Court 
allowed the writ petitions filed by respondents. Hence the 
F 
appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the respondents were working 
as Primary School Teachers for a long period of time and 
G 
they had rendered service as such continuously without 
any break. However, none of the respondents had 
undergone the T.C.H. course, which was the minimum 
prescribed qualification at the r:·<.levant time for being 
815 
•\ H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A appointed to the post of a teacher. Since the respondents 
did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification 
and because of which their appointment was in 
contravention of the Cadre and recruitment Rules, their 
appointments were illegal appointments. [Para 7] [818-C-
B E] 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) 
and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand 
and Others (2008) 1 o sec 1, relied on. 
C 
2. It is a well settled principle of law that even if a 
D 
E 
wrong committed in an earlier case, the same cannot be 
allowed to be perpetuated. [Para 7] [819-A] 
Case Law Reference: 
(2006) 4 sec 1 
(2008) 1 o sec 1 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 7 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 819-
851 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2004 in WP 
Nos. 45859-45891/2003 of the High Court of Karnataka at 
Bangalore. 
F 
Sanjay R. Hegde, A Rohan Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla for the 
Appellants. 
Rajesh Mahale for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave Granted. 
2. By this appeal, the appellants herein have challenged 
the Order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Division Bench of 
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore allowing the Writ 
H Petitions filed by the respondents herein. The High Court had, 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. GADILINGAPPA 817 
AND ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] 
by the said Order, set aside the decision of the KAT and 
A 
allowed the claim of the respondents for regularization of their 
services. 
3. The relevant facts in brief are set out here. The 
respondents herein were appointed as Primary School 
B 
Teachers on honorary basis in the Government run schools. The 
respondents, however, did not possess the T.C.H. qualification, 
which was the minimum prescribed qualification for the post of 
a teacher. The respondents, in view of the fact that they had 
rendered long continuous service as honorary teachers without 
C 
any break, claimed regularization of their services. The 
appellant no.1 rejected the claim of the respondents on the 
ground that any consideration for regularization or absorption 
can be made only in regard to those candidates who 
possessed the minimum prescribed qualification for the post 
of the teachers and as the respondents did not posses the 
D 
minimum prescribed qualifications of T.C.H., they could not be 
considered for regularization or absorption and that if they were 
regularized or absorbed despite their not possessing the 
minimum prescribed qualifications, it would amount to hostile 
discrimination and would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 
E 
of the Constitution. 
· 
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents herein approached 
the KAT. Their applications were, however, rejected by the KAT. 
Against the decision of the KAT, the respondents herein filed 
F 
Writ Petition Nos. 45859-891 of 2003 (S-KAT) before the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. 
The Division Bench disposed of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.