Holding

The Supreme Court, without deciding the substantive merit, ordered that the appellant not be removed from her post to avoid hardship, despite her ineligibility under the Group B reservation.

Summary

D.M. Premkumari, a member of the Telugu Shetty community, was appointed as a primary school teacher in 1994 under the Group B reservation category as per the Karnataka Government's 1986 classification order. Later verification revealed that her caste, Telugu Balija, had been re‑classified to Group D, making her ineligible for the Group B reservation. The Divisional Commissioner and the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision that she could not retain the post, but the Supreme Court, noting her severe financial hardship and the absence of any prejudice to other candidates, chose not to decide the merits and instead ordered that she not be removed from her position to achieve complete justice. The Court emphasized that while the reservation rules were correctly applied, equity demanded that she continue in service. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without setting a precedent, directing the respondents not to dislodge the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to retain her post despite the re‑classification of her caste rendering her ineligible for the Group B reservation.
Whether the Supreme Court can set aside the High Court's decision on the ground of hardship and the principle of complete justice.
Whether the continuation of the appellant's service causes any prejudice to other candidates.
Interpretation and application of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution in the context of reservation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142, s. Article 15(4), s. Article 16(4)

Subjects

reservationcaste verificationGroup BGroup Dhardshipcomplete justiceArticle 15(4)Article 16(4)employmentprimary school teacher

Judgment

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1094

A D.M. PREMKUMARI '!'-
v.
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 806 of 2009)
B
FEBRUARY 9, 2009

[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Article 142 - Complete Justice - Appellant belonged to
Telugu Shetty Community falling under reserved Group 'B'
category - She obtained job under Category 'B' - Later,
authorities found that the said caste was transferred to
D Category 'D' and held that she was not entitled to retain the
post as a person belonging to Group 'B' Category - Held:
Though Division Bench of High Court was right in holding that
. '

she was not entitled to retain the job - However, if her
appointment is struck down it would cause great hardship to
her - It is not the case of employer that continuation of her
E
service would cause prejudice to any one -To do complete
justice, employer directed not to dislodge the appellant from
the post held by her.

Appellant belonged to "Telugu Shetty Communty".
F She claimed reservation under category 'B' as provided
under the clarification order passed by the Government.
She was appointed under the said category as Primary
School Teacher. After the selection, authorities sought for
verification of the caste certificate from the District
G Committee and found that the 'Telugu Balija' caste was
transferred to Group 'D' category and as the appellant
had sought reservation in Group 'B' category, she was :.t •
not entitled to retain the post of Primary School Teacher
as a person belonging to Group 'B' category. Accordingly
H 1094
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL 1095
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.

~·-y it was held that appellant was not entitled to retain the A
said post which was upheld by appellate authority.
Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Single
Judge allowed the same. Division Bench allowed the writ
appeal.
B
In appeal to this Court, appellant took plea of her
pathetic financial condition.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD :1. Deciding this case on merits, and telling the c
appellant that she has to go out of the employment,
would cause great hardship and injustice to the
appellant. [Para 11) [1098-G]

2. The District Committee, which was asked to verify
D
~ ·~ 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 claim any reservation under Group 'B' category.
However, the Single Judge, may have taken a very
sympathetic view of the matter, and came to the rescue E
of a poor primary school teacher. The Division Bench
strictly applied the true interpretation that requires to be
placed while constituting Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of
i the Constitution. Therefore, there was no fault with the
orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court F
... also. [Para 13) [1099-B-D]

3. 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 G
primary school teacher. At this stage, if the appointment
: )I
of the appellant is struck down and if she is now asked
to seek employment elsewhere, it would cause great
hardship and injustice, for the reason that by now she
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R.

A 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. [Para 14] [1099-D-F]
B
4. "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. Such emotions ~

as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist
in legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This is a mis-
c understanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of
justice and it works to maintain social justice and
fairness. However, judiciary does not believe in misplaced
sympathy. [Para 15] [1099-G-H; 1100-A]

D 5. In order to do complete justice, the respondents
• 4
are directed not to dislodge the appellant from the post
of primary school teacher. [Para 16] [1100-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 806
of 2009.
E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2006 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 4031/
2003(S-RES).

P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant.
..
F
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents
...
The following Order of the Court was delivered:

G ORDER

Leave granted. ~

(1) The appellant calls in question the legality or otherwise "
of the judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench
H of High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003,
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL 1097
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.

·-y dated 9th day of January, 2006. A

(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 Backward Class Citizens under B
Article 15(4) ofthe 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 c
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 thatthe 'Telugu Balija' caste has been transferred to Group
'D' category and as the appellant had sought reservation in D
• -t·
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 E
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 F
• Committee .

(6) The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, had approached the High
Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.10843 of 2000. The G
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.
H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.

A (7) The State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by 'i' ·-
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.
B
(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
c 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,
D 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. Shri
Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
E
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 ..
F 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
G 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
H
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL 1099
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.

- ')-"
understood the nuances of legal terminologies like Group 'B'
Category, Group 'D' Category etc., and therefore, now she is
A

caught in the "cobweb."

(13) The District Caste Verification Committee, which was
asked to verify the appellant's claim, is justified in informing the B
appointing authorities that, strictly going by the Government's
orders issued in 1986, the appellant could not have claimed

- ~
1' any reservation under Group 'B' category. We cannot find fault
with their understanding of 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
c
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. D
•"--t

(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 E
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, F

- 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 G
understanding that such 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
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 1 S.C.R.

A 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
8
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.

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

D.G. Appeal disposed of.

-