The Hindu : Karnataka notification quashed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, May 14, 2003

National

National

Karnataka notification quashed

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI May 13. The Supreme Court has struck down a Karnataka Government notification giving protection to the employees appointed under the rule of `rural weightage' and ordering their reinstatement. (As a result of this judgment, about 13,500 employees who were sought to be protected are likely to lose their jobs).

A Bench, comprising Justice Ruma Pal and Justice B.N. Srikrishna, rejected the contention of the State Government that it proceeded on the basis of a misinterpretation of the apex court order dated November 26, 2001, rejecting the review of the judgment dated October 11, declaring the `rural weightage' rule as unconstitutional.

The Bench said the rule granting `rural weightage' had been struck down and this court came to the conclusion that only those appointments which were made up to the date of the single judge's order would be continued. Therefore no further appointments on the basis of the rule would be considered to have been validly made.

Initially, appointments were made under the impugned rule of the Karnataka Civil Servants General Recruitment Rules giving weightage to rural candidates. A single judge of the High Court in November 1996 quashed the rule, but said those appointed would not be disturbed.

However, a Division Bench stayed the order and during the pendency of the appeal, many appointments were made and the employees gave an undertaking that their appointments would be subject to the result of the appeal. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed and the Bench upheld the single judge's order in November 1999 and said those appointed till the judgment would continue in service.

On appeal, the apex court in October 2001 struck down the rule and said appointments made up to the judgment of the single judge alone were valid.

Pursuant to this, a notification was issued relieving the appointees. But a fresh notification was issued by the High Court (after the review application was dismissed) on February 6, 2002, ordering reinstatement of the employees who were relieved. The present appeals were directed against this notification.

Disposing of the appeals, the Bench noted that those who got the benefit of the second notification were appointed during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and all of them had given undertakings.

They, therefore, knew that their appointments were precarious and subject to the outcome of the appeal.

The decision in the appeal having gone against them, they were bound by the undertaking and they could not now contend otherwise, the Bench said.

The Bench rejected the plea made on behalf of the State Government, the High Court and the interim appointees that they should be allowed to continue.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National