REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 819-851 _of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26171-26203 of 2004]

State of Karnataka & Ors.  …. Appellants

Versus

Gadilingappa & Ors.       …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

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  Petitions  filed  by  the  

respondents herein. The High Court had, by the said Order, set aside  

the decision of the KAT and 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 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 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  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 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 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  the  

aforesaid Writ Petitions in terms of a judgment of that Court in Writ

Petitions  33173-33220  of  2003  (S-KAT)  thereby  allowing  the  Writ  

Petitions filed by the respondents herein.  

5. We have heard the learned  counsel  appearing for the parties  and  

carefully perused the documents on record before us. The crux of the  

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is  

that  the  High  Court  had  erred  in  allowing  the  claims  of  the  

respondents for regularization of their services, for the respondents  

herein did not fulfill  the minimum required qualification for being  

appointed as Primary School Teachers as they did not possess the  

T.C.H. qualification.

6. On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents  supported  the  decision  of  the  High  Court  and  

endeavoured to persuade us to uphold it by dismissing the present  

appeal.

7. Admittedly, the respondents herein were working as Primary School  

Teachers for a long period of time and they had rendered service as  

such continuously without any break. However,  after perusing the  

relevant documents on record what comes to light is the fact that  

none of  the respondents had undergone the T.C.H.  course,  which  

was the minimum prescribed  qualification at the relevant  time for  

being 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,  we  are  of  the  considered  view  that  their  

appointments were illegal appointments. Furthermore, neither has it  

been brought to our notice nor was it specifically stated before the  

High Court by the respondents in the Writ Petition Nos. 45859-891  

of 2003 that the respondents belonged to the Scheduled Castes or  

Scheduled Tribes category, which was the case of the petitioners in  

Writ Petitions Nos. 33173-33220 of 2003 (S-KAT) as well the main  

factor taken into consideration by the High Court of Karnataka while  

allowing  the  claims of  the  petitioners  therein  for  regularization  of  

their services. Besides, the Constitutional Bench had, in Secretary,  

State  of  Karnataka  and  Others  v.  Umadevi  (3) and  Others  

reported  in  (2006)  4  SCC  1,  clarified  in  explicit  terms  that  the  

decisions  which  run  counter  to  the  principles  settled  and  the  

directions given in the Uma Devi’s (supra) case will stand denuded  

of their status as precedents. Here, we also wish to point out that it  

is a well settled principle of law that even if a wrong committed in an  

earlier case, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, together with  

the decisions of this Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) and Official  

Liquidator v.  Dayanand and Others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1,

the claim of the respondents for regularization cannot be sustained.  

We are, therefore,  of the considered view that the present  appeals  

are entitled to be allowed, which we hereby do. Liberty is, however,  

granted  to  the  respondents  to  seek  any  other  remedy  under  any  

other law, if such a remedy and right is available to the respondents.

…………………J. [V.S. Sirpurkar]

………………….J. [Dr.  Mukundakam Sharma]

January 22, 2010 New Delhi.