TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforementioned backdrop. A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. But, it is also well-known that the judgment must be construed as if it had been rendered in accordance with law. It may be true that in the Appellant's application for review, more or less similar pleas were raised, but rejected, but, herein the same is not an issue as we are concerned only with construction of this Court's order dated 15th March, 1994. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees. The concept of justice is that one should get what is due to him or her in law. The concept of justice cannot be stretched so as to cause heart-burning to more meritorious candidates. Moreover, at the end of the day, the Respondent has got what could be given to her in law. As of now, she had already been enjoying a higher scale of pay than what she would have got if she was to join the post of Assistant Controller. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if she is allowed to continue in her post and direct the Appellant to consider her seniority in the Administrative Service in terms of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner (Karnataka Administrative Service). If no vacancies are available, the State Government will create a supernumerary post for the appellant's appointment. We further direct that for the purposes of seniority, the appellant shall be placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976, but she will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellant will be considered for promotion if otherwise found suitable. These directions will be carried out within three months from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. 3. An application for review was filed by the Appellant herein inter alia on the ground that she did not have any legal right to the said post as the State of Karnataka did not intend to give effect to the additional select list prepared by the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (Commission), which was dismissed. 4. The State of Karnataka thereafter sought for the opinion of the Commission. The Commission by communication dated 24.6.1995 advised that as per the Respondent's ranking in the General Merit Category - I posts, she should be considered for the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts which is a Category - I post, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, drew our attention to the prayer made by the Respondent herein in her application before the Tribunal and submitted that the order of this Court should be construed in the context thereof. Drawing our attention to the averments made in the application for review filed by the Appellant herein, it was contended that therein a similar stand was taken but this Court having rejected the review application, the Appellant herein cannot now be permitted to re-agitate the said question once over again. 10. It is not in dispute that the Respondent herein had been working from the very beginning in the Revenue Department. The order of this Court dated 15th March, 1994 as noticed supra should, thus, be construed in the light of the decision of this Court and the pleadings of the parties. 11. For the said purpose, we may notice the prayers made by the Respondent before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which are as under: i) Declare by the issue of an appropriate order or direction as the case may be, the action of the State Government in denying the benefits to the applicants flowing from the decision of the Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respective dates the Candidates included in the second list to the Annexure B were appointed with all consequential benefits except an express benefits denied by the State Government by order dated 22.5.1990 proceeded to grant benefits only to the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 14. Yet again, in the Grounds contained in the said application, she merely contended: With the setting aside of the directions, even the deletion of the names of the applicants from the additional list of Group A services is automatically held to be illegal and discriminatory Furthermore, in sub-paragraph (m) of paragraph 6, she stated: The applicants submit that they too are similarly and equally placed like those who were Appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of appointment on the basis of first select list (Annexure-A1) 15. It is, thus, only in the prayer portion, she prayed for being considered for appointment to Group 'A' Service (Assistant Commissioner) without there being any requisite pleadings therefor. She had, thus, never questioned the merit position. 16. The Commission issued a notification on 23.2.1976 showing the names of the cand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant shall be placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976, but she will not be entitled to any backwages . I submit that the select list of the 1976 Batch in the Administrative Service (Post Karnataka Administrative Service Group 'A') comprised 15 candidates. Three of them died, while one did not join service. The service particulars and promotion accorded to the remaining 11 candidates are indicated in the chart marked herewith as Annexure R-1. I further submit that the 1976 batch Karnataka Administrative Service Group 'A' (Junior Scale) Officers were promoted to the Karnataka Administrative Service Group 'A' (Senior Scale). Vide Notification dated 2.9.1983, a copy of which is marked herewith as Annexure R-2, while I was promoted to Karnataka Administrative Service Group 'A' (Senior Scale) in 1997, vide Notification dated 10.4.1987 the true copy of which is marked herewith as Annexure R-3. 18. It is, therefore, evident that it had never been nor could be her claim that she should be placed in higher grade ignoring the case of persons similarly situated. 19. It is true that the Appellant herein filed an application praying for review of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same in its entirety and not only a part of it. 24. In Gajraj Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(2001) 5 SCC 762], this Court held: A doubt arising from reading a judgment of the Court can be resolved by assuming that the judgment was delivered consistently with the provisions of law and therefore a course or procedure in departure from or not in conformity with statutory provisions cannot be said to have been intended or laid down by the Court unless it has been so stated specifically. 25. In N. K. Rajgrahia Vs. M/s Mahavir Planatation Ltd. Ors. JT 2006 (1) SC 70, the Court observed: An order of a court of law and, in particular, a consent order, must be read in its entirety for the purpose of ascertaining its true intent and purport. 26. Devin Katti (supra) was not directly applicable to the case of the Appellant. Therein this Court was concerned with the selection process which started by a notification dated 23rd May, 1975 which was published on 29th May, 1975 only for the post of Tehsildars whereas the Respondent herein was selected in terms of the notification dated 28th November, 1974. This Court in the case of the Respondent proceeded on the basis that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
