RAGHAVENDRA RAO ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

RAGHAVENDRA RAO ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Employees appointed by the Tehsildar, who had no authority under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, have no right to regularization under the 1986 Rules. Their claim is constitutionally barred as it was based on hereditary right, and is in any event barred by res judicata as the issue was settled in earlier...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Raghavendra Rao etc.; Respondent: State of Karnataka & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From Karnataka High Court Decisions and Tribunal Orders
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Regularization of Service, Public Appointments, Res Judicata, Hereditary Claim in Employment, Jurisdiction of Appointing Authority, Absorption in Service
Service Law Constitutional Law Regularization of Service Public Appointments Res Judicata Hereditary Claim in Employment Jurisdiction of Appointing Authority Absorption in Service

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raghavendra Rao etc.

Appellant

State of Karnataka & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From Karnataka High Court Decisions and Tribunal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees appointed by Tehsildar are entitled to regularization under the Karnataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986
  2. 2 Whether appointments based on hereditary right confers a right to absorption in public service
  3. 3 Whether principles of res judicata apply to writ proceedings in this context

Ratio Decidendi

Employees appointed by the Tehsildar, who had no authority under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, have no right to regularization under the 1986 Rules. Their claim is constitutionally barred as it was based on hereditary right, and is in any event barred by res judicata as the issue was settled in earlier litigation finally decided by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals are dismissed. Any amount paid to appellants during service under interim orders need not be recovered. No order as to costs.