http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PRAKASH K. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      These appeals  arise from  the order  of the  Karnataka Administrative Tribunal  made  on  February  27,1996  in  OA No.3034-35/95. The  recruitment for  the post of teacher was completed prior  to November 17,1993 and teachers came to be appointed. When  the same was challenged, the Tribunal found that they  were in  excess of  50% of the quota reserved for the backward classes and weaker sections of the society. But the Tribunal  declined to  interfere with  the order  on the ground that the appellants belatedly approached the Tribunal on June 15, 1995 by which time all the appointments had come to be made and the teachers were working. The  Tribunal has pointed out thus:      "The  present   Applications   were      filed on  15.6.1995. The Applicants      question the  appointments  to  the      public offices  made by  the  State      Government. Any  challenge  to  the      appointments    by     the    State      Government should  be made  at  the      earliest. Any laches on the part of      the challenger  to the appointments      is a  ground to  refuse the relief.      Upsetting of  the  appointments  at      this belated  stage would  also up-      set  the  administrative  machinery      and  it   is  not   in  the  public      interest that the appointments made      at least  a  year  and  six  months      prior  to   the   filing   of   the      Applications should be set aside.      It is  true that the reservation in      excess of  50% is unconstitutional.      The recruitment  process  no  doubt      was substantially  over by the time      the  Supreme  Court  announced  its      judgment in  Indira Sawhney’s case.      Though the select list was prepared

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    subsequently, in  all fairness  the      State Government  should  have  re-      done the  select list  in the light      of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme      Court. But  the question is whether      we  can,  at  this  stage,  set  at      naught those  appointments  on  the      ground of  unconstitutionality. The      private  Respondents  have  already      joined the service. Public interest      requires that the experience gained      by the  private Respondents  should      not be  lost  to  the  public.  The      relief  to   be  granted   by  this      Tribunal is entirely discretionary.      Though Mr.  Bhagwath contends  that      the Applicants have approached this      Tribunal within  one  year  of  the      date of  the cause  of action, that      may not be technically correct. The      cause  of  action  arose  when  the      select list was prepared which they      knew as  unconstitutional  even  as      early as on 17.11.1993. This apart,      we are  of the  firm view  that the      limitation provided  under  Section      19 of  the Administrative Tribunals      Act, 1985, does not come in the way      of exercising  our  discretion  and      reject  an   Application,  if   the      Application  suffers  from  laches.      This is  the view  we have  already      taken in  NAGARAJA  AND  OTHERS  v.      DIRECTOR  GENERAL   AND   INSPECTOR      GENERAL  OF  POLICE  IN  KARNATAKA,      BANGALORE    AND    OTHERS    (1995      K.S.L.J.541). This  Tribunal cannot      act  mechanically   and  grant  the      relief only  on the  ground that an      Applicant   has   approached   this      Tribunal within  one  year  of  the      cause of action and he has made out      a good case on merits, ignoring the      realities and  the  effect  of  the      relief on  the  administration  and      private  parties.   This   Tribunal      cannot  shut   its  eyes   to   the      inconvenience and injury that would      result to  the private  Respondents      who   have   joined   the   service      already."      In that  view, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal  is not  warranted on  the facts  in this case. Shri Rama  Jois, learned  senior counsel for the appellants, contended that  there are  still some  vacancies and further vacancies have  arisen and direction may be given to appoint the appellants  to those posts. The Tribunal has pointed out that unless  their merits  are  considered  by  the  Service Commission  vis-a-vis  other  eligible  candidates  and  the selected candidates, Tribunal cannot give any such direction for appointment.  We find  that view  taken by  the Tribunal also  cannot   be  said   to   be   unjustified   warranting interference. On the other hand, the view is consistent with philosophy of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3