REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.806  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 7092 of 2006)

D.M.  Premkumari                                                         ………  Appellant

Versus

The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Ors.                                          ……..Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

1) The  appellant  calls  in  question  the  legality  or  otherwise  of  the

judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court

of  Karnataka  in  Writ  Appeal  No.4031  of  2003,  dated  9th day  of

January, 2006.

2) The appellant belongs to “Telugu Shetty Community”.  She claimed

reservation under category ‘B’ as provided under the Classification

Order passed by the Government of  Karnataka for the  purposes of

1

Backward Class Citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. She

was selected and appointed under the said category as Primary School

teacher by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysore.

3) The  Deputy  Director  of  Public  Instructions,  Mysore,  after

appointment of the appellant, had sought for verification of caste and

income certificate from the District Committee for Backward Classes

and  minorities  for  issue  of  certificate.   The  Committee,  vide  its

proceedings  dated  08.04.1996,  was  of  the  view that   the  `Telugu

Balija’ caste has been transferred to Group `D’ category and as the

appellant  had sought reservation in Group ‘B’ category, she would

not  be entitled to  retain  the post  of   Primary School  Teacher  as  a

person belonging to Group `B’ category.

4) The appellant, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the District

Committee,  had  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  Divisional

Commissioner, Mysore.

5) The Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 07.02.2000, has

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and thereby has confirmed

the orders passed by the District Committee.

6) The  appellant,  feeling  aggrieved  by  the  orders  passed  by  the

Divisional  Commissioner,  had  approached  the  High  Court  of

2

Karnataka in Writ Petition No.10843 of 2000.  The Learned Single

Judge, by his order dated 05.03.2003, has allowed the writ  petition

and has set aside the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner

and  also  the  orders  passed  by  the  District  Caste  Verification

Committee.

7) The State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single

Judge, had preferred Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003.  The Appellate

Forum has allowed the State’s appeal and, thereby, has set aside the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

8) The appellant, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Division

Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003,

is before us in this appeal.

9) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.

10)Shri  P.R.  Ramasesh,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant

would inform us the pathetic financial condition of the appellant and

her family members and also would tell us, that, if for any reason, the

appellant’s appointment is  struck down, the family of the appellant

might have to lead the life of penury, and therefore, requests us to set

aside the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka and confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3

Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State would justify the orders passed by the Division Bench of the

Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003.

11)Having given our anxious consideration to the case pleaded by the

learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view, that, it would not

be desirable to decide this case on merits.   If we have to do it,  we

might have to tell the appellant that she might have to go out of the

employment.  This, in our opinion, would cause great hardship and

injustice to the appellant.  

12)The appellant, as we have noticed earlier, was appointed as a Primary

School  Teacher  sometime  in  the  year  1994.   At  the  time  of  her

appointment,  she  had  produced  the  caste  certificate  issued  by  the

Tehsildar.   She  might  not  have  understood  the  nuances  of  legal

terminologies like Group `B' Category, Group ‘D’ Category etc., and

therefore, now she is caught in the “cobweb.”

13)The District Caste Verification Committee, which was asked to verify

the  appellant’s  claim,  is  justified  in  informing  the  appointing

authorities that, strictly going by the Government’s orders issued in

1986,  the  appellant  could  not  have  claimed  any  reservation  under

Group `B’ category.  We cannot find fault with their understanding of

4

the Government Order.  However, the learned Single Judge, may be

taking a very sympathetic view of the matter, has come to the rescue

of a poor primary school teacher.   The Division Bench has strictly

applied  the  true  interpretation  that  requires  to  be  placed  while

constituting  Article  15(4)  and  Article  16(4)  of  the  Constitution.

Therefore, we cannot find fault with the orders passed by the Division

Bench of the Karnataka High Court also.

14)This Court, while entertaining the special leave petition, had granted

the  status-quo  order.   By  virtue  of  that  order,  the  appellant  is

continuing to work as a primary school teacher.  At this stage, if the

appointment of the appellant is struck down and if she is now asked

to seek employment elsewhere, in our opinion, it would cause great

hardship and injustice, for the reason by now she must have crossed

the upper age limit for seeking public employment and she may not

get any employment anywhere.  It is not the case of the other side

also, that if the appellant’s service is continued, it would cause any

prejudice to any other applicant.

15) “The law is merciless”, is a most frequently quoted saying.  It has led

people  to  mistakenly  think  that  it  is  separated  from  feelings  of

righteousness.  We have become used to the understanding that such

5

emotions as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist in

legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This,  in our view, is a mis-

understanding.   Judiciary has  a  very strong  sense  of  justice  and  it

works  to  maintain  social  justice  and  fairness.   We hasten  to  add,

judiciary does not believe in misplaced sympathy.

16)In view of  the  above discussion  and  keeping in  view the  peculiar

facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  dispose  of  this  appeal,

without  going into  the merits  of  the case.  In order  to  do complete

justice, we direct the respondents herein, not to dislodge the appellant

from the post of primary school teacher.  This order of ours shall not

be treated as a precedent in any other case.   

17)The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no order as to

costs.

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

                                                                                    …………………………………J.                                                                                       [ H.L. DATTU ]

New Delhi, February  9, 2009.

6