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
ORDER
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
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.