STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.versusGADILINGAPPA AND ORS.

                     [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815


            STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.                             A
                               v.
                 GADILINGAPPA AND ORS.
            (Civil Appeal Nos. 819-851 of 2010)
                     JANUARY 22, 2010
                                                                    B
      [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                   SHARMA, JJ.]

     Service Law: Regularisation - Minimum prescribed
qualification for the post of teacher - Not fulfilled - Claim for   C
regularisation - Held: Not maintainable.

   Precedent: Wrong committed in an earlier case - Held:
Same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

     Respondents were appointed as primary school                   D
teachers on honorary basis in the Government run
schools. They, 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                     E
continuous service as ~onorary teachers without any
break, claimed regularization of their services. Their claim
was rejected on the ground that they did not possess the
minimum prescribed qualification of T.C.H. High Court
allowed the writ petitions filed by respondents. Hence the          F
appeals.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court

    HELD: 1. Admittedly, the respondents were working
as Primary School Teachers for a long period of time and G
they had rendered service as such continuously without
any break. However, none of the respondents had
undergone the T.C.H. course, which was the minimum
prescribed qualification at the r:·<.levant time for being
                          815                              •\
                                                              H
    816       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A 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, their
  appointments were illegal appointments. [Para 7] [818-C-
B E]
        Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3)
    and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
    and Others (2008) 1o sec 1, relied on.

C        2. 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. [Para 7] [819-A]

                         Case Law Reference:
D         (2006) 4 sec 1            relied on          Para 7
          (2008) 1o sec 1           relied on          Para 8

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 819-
    851 of 2010.
E
        From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2004 in WP
    Nos. 45859-45891/2003 of the High Court of Karnataka at
    Bangalore.

F       Sanjay R. Hegde, A Rohan Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla for the
    Appellants.

          Rajesh Mahale for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          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
H Petitions filed by the respondents herein. The High Court had,
 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. GADILINGAPPA 817
   AND ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

by the said Order, set aside the decision of the KAT and            A
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                 B
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       C
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           D
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      E
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       F
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     G
by the respondents herein.

     5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and carefl!lly 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       H
    818      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A 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.
B
         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.

C        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
D   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
E   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
F   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 whil~ allowing the
    claims of the petitioners therein for regularization of their
G   services. Besides, the Constitutional Bench had, in Secretary,
    State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others
    reported in (2006) 4  sec    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
H
 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. GADILINGAPPA 819
  - AND ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
point out that it is a well settled principle of law that even if a 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 B
(supra) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others
reported in (2008) 10 sec 1, the claim of the respondents for
regularization canriot 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 C
the respondents to seek any other remedy under any other law,
If such a remedy and right is available to the respondents.
D.G.                                         Appeals allowed.