Holding

The respondent is not entitled to the Assistant Commissioner post; she is only eligible for the Assistant Controller of Accounts position as per her merit rank, and the earlier order cannot be enforced to grant her a higher post.

Summary

C. Lalitha was appointed as Tehsildar under Karnataka's revised reservation policy and was placed only in the Additional List of Category I Service, not in the notification for Assistant Commissioner. She applied before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for appointment as Assistant Commissioner; the Tribunal dismissed her claim. A Special Leave Petition was allowed in 1994 directing her appointment as Assistant Commissioner with seniority below the last 1976 appointee and creation of a super‑numerary post if needed. The High Court later ordered the State to implement that direction. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Lalitha’s merit rank entitled her only to the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts, not to the Assistant Commissioner post, and that the earlier order could not be enforced to give her a benefit beyond her merit position. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court order, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The enforceability of the 1994 Supreme Court order directing appointment of the respondent as Assistant Commissioner despite her not being in the first list.
Whether the amendment to the reservation policy and the respondent's placement in the Additional List affect her entitlement to a Category I post.
Whether the respondent can now claim a right to appointment to a higher post without having pleaded such a right earlier before the Tribunal.
The application of the principle of parity/similarly situated employees in the context of service appointments.
Whether the State can be directed to create a super‑numerary post for the respondent.

Subjects

Service lawAppointmentReservation policyMeritAdditional listSeniorityParityAdministrative TribunalSupernumerary postKarnataka Administrative Service

Judgment

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. A
v
C. LALITHA

JANUARY 31, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

' .\ Service Law-Appointment-Entitlement to---Respondent appointed as
Tehsildar in terms of revised reservation policy-Her name was included in
the Additional List of Category I Service-However, her name did not figure
in the notification showing names of candidates eligible to hold post of
c
Assistant Commissioner-She filed application before Tribunal claiming
appointment as Assistant Commissioner-Tribunal dismissed her claim-In
SLP to Supreme Court her claim was accepted by an order dated I 5. 03. I 994-
There were many persons who were above her both amongst General Category
' as well as Reserved Category Candidates in the merit List-She had not D
questioned her merit position-As per her ranking in the General Merit
Category I· Posts, she was entitled to the post of Assistant Controller of
Accounts-Presently working in Karna/aka Administrative Service, Gr. A,
Super Selection Post-Correct position as regards her ranking amongst the'
successful candidates had not been brought to the notice of this Court when E.
it passed an order dated 15. 03.1994 allowing her ~/aim-Held, State cannot
be directed to implement order of this Court dated 15.03.1994.-Further
, held, interest of justice would be sub-served if she was allowed to continue
... in her post.

Judgment, interpretation of-Held, a judgment is not required to be F
read as a statute-It must be construed as if it had been rendered in
accordance with law-It must be read in its entirety for ascertaining its true
intent and purport.

Service Law-Pleadings-Respondent prayed for appointment as
Assistant Commissioner without any requisite pleadings therefor-She had G
never challenged her merit position-No plea as to her legal right to the said
>-., post ever made before the Tribunal-Held, she can not be allowed to take
such plea now.

971 H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 I S.C.R.

A Service Jurisprudence-Parity in Employment--Held, all persons
similarly situated should be treated similarly though only one person has
approached the Court--Juslice demands that a person should not be allowed
to derive any undue advantage over other employees.

State of Karnataka made an amendment in the reservation policy of the
B state. In N. T Devin Katti's case, this court declared that the revised reservation
policy was not applicable to selection initiated prior thereto. In terms of the
revised reservation policy, respondent was appointed as a Tehsildar. Her name
was included in the Additional List of Category I Service. Upon revision of •
the Additional List, she had been placed at Sr. No. 26 of Category II Service,
C which was meant for Tehsildars. Her name did not figure in the notification
showing names of candidates who became eligible to hold posts of Assistant
Commissioners being Category I Service. As per her ranking in the merit
list, there were many persons who were above her both amongst General
Category and also Reserved Category. There were six more candidates in the
General Merit Category who were above her in ranking. Her application before
D the Tribunal claiming appointment as Assistant commissioner was dismissed. ~
Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst was allowed by an order dt.
15.03.1994 in C. lalitha case. It was held that the respondent was admittedly
selected and shown in the first list which was upheld by the SC in N. T Devin
Katti case !this view was erroneous as she was not actually shown in the first
E list but was included in the Additional list of Category I Service!. Thereafter,
she was offered the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts which is a
Category I post as per her ranking in the General Merit Category I posts.
She, however, refused the offer. She filed a fresh application before the
Tribunal, which came to be dismissed whereupon she filed a writ petition
before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition directing the state
F to implement the order of the Supreme Court in C. lalitha case within four
months. State appealed to this Court.

Appellant pleaded that the effect of the order of this Court is to render
the parties to the same position as if the reservation policy was not amended
and if so construed, she having been placed in the supplementary list could
G not have laid any claim for any post in the Administrative Service. It was also
urged that merit should be the sole criteria for selection of the candidates.

Allowing the appeal, the court.

HELD: I.I. The Commission issued a notification on 23.02.1976 showing
H
STA TE OF KARNA T AKA v. C. LALITHA 973
. the names of the candidates who became eligible to hold the posts of Assistant A
Commissioner being Category I Service. The name of the Respondent did not
figure therein. Her name did not figure even in posts of Assistant Controllers,
which were also Category I posts. Her name appeared at SL. No. 2 iu the
Additional List of Category I Service. It is true that having regard to Devin
Katti the said List was revised but even on revision of the list, her name could B
have been placed only below K.C. Ramamurthy who got 871 marks as she got
868 marks. Even some candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category
got higher marks than her. It further appears that even in the List of
Commercial Tax Officers the last candidate therein who was a General
Category candidate got 875 marks. Thus, there were many persons who were
above the Respondent both amongst General Category as also Reserved C
Category candidates. Upon revision of the List, she was placed at SL. No. 26
of Category II Service, which was meant for Tahasildars. It is not in dispute
that if the name of the Respondent was to be included in the Assistant
Commissioner f!;_om the General Merit Category, then cases of six more
candidates, being above her, were also required to be considered. The merit
position of the candidates, as noticed herein before, had never been questioned D
and even now has not been disputed. The Respondent, on her own showing,
has been presently working in Karnataka Administrative Service, Group 'A'
Super-Selection Post in the scale of pay of Rs. 13820 - 17220. It had never
been nor could be her claim that she should be placed in higher grade
ignoring the case of persons similarly situated. 1979-D-G; 980-B-F) E
1.2. Prayers made in the original application before the Tribunal must
be construed having regard to the pleadings thereof. In the application filed
, by the Respondent before the Administrative Tribunal, no statement far less
any claim grounded on legal right was raised to the effect that she was entitled
to be appointed as Assistant Commissioner from the very inception. Such a F
plea could not have been taken. It is 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. 1978-D; 979-CI

1.3. A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. But, it G
is also well-known that the judgment must be construed as if it had been
rendered in accordance with law.1981-EI

Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai. 120051 4 SCC 772; P.S.
Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.. 120041 11 SCC 672; Gajraj Singh v. State of H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORiS [2006J I S.C.R.

A UP., (20011 5 SCC762 and N.K.Raigrahia v. Mis. Mahavir Plantation ltd.. •
JT (2006) I SC 70, relied on. -t

Zee Teleji/ms ltd. v. Union of India, (200514 SCC 649, referred to.

2. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
B postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only
because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons
similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled
that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true
that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the
C meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was
a Category I Post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust
her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her
therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of
conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to. The correct
position as regard her ranking amongst the successful candidates had not
D been brought to the notice of this court and if it had been so done, this Court
would have found that she was entitled only to the post of Assistant Controller
of Accounts. (982-G-H; 983-A-BI

N. T Devin Kaui v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (199013 SCC
157; distinguished.
E
3. 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
F 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.
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 of this Court dated 15th March 1994 that she
G would be the last in the seniority list of the appointees in the post of Category
I Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka Administrative Service). 1983-C-EI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 919 of2002.

Fron} the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.200 I of the Karnataka High
H Court in Writ Petition No. I0812 of 1998.
STATE OF KARNA TAKA v. C. LALITHA [SINHA . .I.] 975
(S-KAD. A
P.P. Rao, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, A. Rohen Singh and Ms.
Jaylaxmi Pavani for the Appellants.

S.S. Javali, S.V. Narsimhan, B.K. Choudhary, Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,
Vikas R. and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Respondent. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
I
* S.B. SINHA, J. Construction of an inter-parties order of this Court is .
in question in this appeal wherein the validity of an amendment of the
reservation policy of the State which was the subject matter of a decision of C
this Court in N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission and Ors., (1990] 3 SCC 157, had been raised. This Court therein
declared that the revised reservation policy was not applicable to selection
initiated prior thereto and consequently directed:

~ "15 ... ln this view, we direct the State Government to appoint the D
appellants on the posts of Tehsildars with retrospective effect, but if
no vacancies are available the State Government will create
supernumerary posts ofTehsildars for appointing the appellants against
those posts. We further direct that for purposes of seniority the
appellants should be placed below last candidate appointed in 1976, E
but they will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellants will
be entitled to promotion if otherwise found suitable."

The Respondent thereafter filed an original application before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal claiming appointment as Assistant
Commissioner although in terms of the said revised reservation policy she F
was appointed as a Tehsildar. The said original application having been
dismissed, a Special Leave Petition was filed thereagainst before this Court
which was allowed by an order dated 15th March, 1994 in the following terms:

"The appellant was admittedly selected and shown in the first list
which is upheld by this Court in N. T. Bevin Katti and Ors. v. G
Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors., (1990] 3 SCC 157.
, j
In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the
order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. We are informed that
the appellant has since been promoted to Class-I post of Assistant
Commissioner (Karnataka Administrative Service). lfno vacancies are H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A available, the State Government wil I cre'lte 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.
B
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."

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 Kamataka did not intend to give effect to the additional select list
C prepared by the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (Comniission),
which was dismissed.

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
D should be considered for the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts which >
is a Category I post, as the marks secured by her were below the marks
secured by the candidates selected as Assistant Controller of Accounts. The
Respondent did not accede thereto when such a post was offered to her.

After an unsuccessful attempt to obtain some order in a contempt
E
proceedings instituted by her, the Respondent filed a fresh original application
before the Administrative Tribunal which came to be dismissed whereupon
she filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

We may at this stage notice that the ground upon which the
F Respondent's application was dismissed by the Tribunal inter a/ia was that
one B.N. Mahesh was at S.No. I of the said list whereas the Respondent
figured at S.No. 2 and the former' s claim for appointment as Assistant
Commissioner was thence pending before this Court. The matter of Shri B.N.
Mahesh being Civil Appeal No. 3475of1998 was dismissed by this Court on
22. 7.1998 on the ground that he moved the Tribunal at a belated stage. Taking
G note of the said fact and interpreting the judgment and order diited 15th
March. 1994, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed
by the Respondent against the order of the Tribunal directing the State to
implement the order of this Court within four months without reference to the
assessment of merit by the Commission as well as the fact that the Government
H had earlier offered appointment to her as Assistant Controller. State Accounts
STA TE OF KARNATAKA v. C. LALITHA [SINHA. l.J 977

. Department, Group 'A' on the Commission's recommendations . A
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant
submitted that the State intended to implement this Court's judgment dated
15th March, 1994 wherefor only the recommendation of the Commission was
sought for and pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof the notification
dated 14.8.1995 was issued. It was argued that the effect of the order of this B
Court is to render the parties to the same position as if the reservation policy
was not amended and if so construed, the Respondent having been placed
in the supplementary list could not have laid any claim for any post in the
Administrative Service.

It was urged that the merit should be the sole criteria for selection of C
the candidates and in that view of the matter, the State cannot be said to have
misconstrued and misinterpreted the judgment of this Court.

Mr. S.S. Javali, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, on the other hand, drew our attention to the prayer made by the D
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. E
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.
F
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 th~ State Government in denying the
benefits to the applicants flowing from the decision of the Hon'ble G
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 2270 to 73/87 and
connected appeals, as illegal and discriminatory, with a further
.•
declaration that the applicants are entitled to be considered for
appointment to Group A Services. (Assistant Commissioners).
On the basis of the first select list prepared by the Karnataka H
978 SuPREME COuRT REPORTS [2006 J 1 S.C.R.

A Public Service Commission vide Notification dated 23.2.1976
published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 26.2.1976 (Annexure •
A I) and entitled to all consequential benefits, in the interest of
justice and equity.
(ii) Issue an appropriate order or direction, as the case may be,
B directing the State Government to pass appropriate orders
appointing the applicants to Group A services (Assistant
Commissioners), pursuant to the declaration to be granted as per
the above prayer, w.e.f, the dates, the same has become due with
all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and equity. J,.
C (iii) Pass such orders just and expedient in the circumstances of the
case, including ~he aware of cost."

Prayers made in the said original application before the Tribunal must
be construed having regard to the pleadings thereof. We have been taken
through the application filed by the Respondent before the Administrative
D Tribunal. No statement far less any claim grounded on legal right was raised
to the effect that she was entitled to be appointed as Assistant Commissioner
>
from the very inception. Sych a plea cou Id not have been taken.

In paragraph 6 of her application, she accepted that her name was
included in the Additional List of Category I Service. In sub-paragraph (e) of
E the said paragraph, she moreover accepted that her name had appeared at SI.
Nos. 26 and 5 respectively in Category II Service (Tahsildars) now designated
as Group 'B' Service omitting her name from Group 'A' Service. In sub-
paragraph (g) of paragraph 6 she stated:

"By order dated 30.3.1990, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India struck
F down the government order dated 23.4.1976. Thus, with the setting
aside of the Government order dated 23.4.1976, the applicants also
became entitled to be appointed to Group 'A' Services on the basis
of the first select list (Annexure A 1). The judgment of the Hon 'ble
Supreme Court of India also ensures to the benefit of the applicants
G and accordingly the applicants became entitled to be appointed to
Group A Services w.e.f. the 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"
H
)-
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. C. LALITHA [SINHA. J.] 979
Yet again, in the Grounds contained in the said application, she merely A
•
• 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"
B
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-
Al)" c
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.
D
' The Commission issued a notification on 23.2.1976 showing the names
of the candidates who became eligible to hold the posts of Assistant
Commissioners being Category I service. The name of the Respondent did not
figure therein. Her name did not figure even in the posts of Assistant Controllers
which were also Category I posts. Her name appeared at SL No. 2 in the
Additional List of Category I service. It is true that having regard to Devin E
Katti (supra), the said List was revised but even on revision of the list, her
name could have been placed only below K.C. Ramamurthy who got 871
marks as she got 868 marks. Even some candidates belonging to the Scheduled
f
·~
Castes category as, for example, Shri T. Muktamba got higher marks than her
i.e. 893 marks. It further appears that even in. the List of Commercial Tax F
Officers, the last candidate therein Shri M. Viswanatha who was a General
Category candidate got 875 marks. Thus, there were many persons who were
above the Respondent both amongst General Category as also Reserved
Category candidates. Upon revision of the List. She had, thus, been placed
at SL No. 26 of Category II Service which was meant for Tahasildars. It is not
in dispute that if the name of the Respondent was to be included in the G
Assistant Commissioner from the General Merit Category, then cases of six
more candidates, namely, A.C. Suryaprakash, C. Vasumathi, V. Mohan Kumar,
... ,' M. Vishwanatha, K.C. Ramamurthy and B.N. Mahesh, being above her, were
also required to be considered. It is, furthermore, not in dispute that those
who had been offered the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts in 1993 H
980 St:PRE:v!E COURT REPORTS [2006 J I S.C.R.

A are currently working as Joint Controller. Only one person, Shri M.V.
Munirathnappa has been promoted as Additional Controller of State Accounts
on 22.5.1997. The merit position of the candidates, as noticed hereinbefore,
had never been questioned and even now has not been disputed. The
Respondent, on her own showing, has been presently working in Kamataka
B Administrative Service, Group 'A', Super-Selection Post in the scale of pay
of Rs. 13820-17220. There are 62 posts in the Selection Grade and 45 posts
in the Super-Selection Grade. The post of Controller is only one whereas the
number of posts of Additional Controller is 9 and that of Joint Controller is
50.

C The Respondent herself in her additional affidavit stated:

·'That it is directed by this Hon'ble Court on 15.3.1994 "that for the
purpose of seniority. the Appellant 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
D Administrative Service (Post Kamataka 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
E to the Kamataka 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 Kamataka Administrative
Service Group 'A' (Semor Scale) in 1997, vide Notification dated
I0.4.1987 the true copy of which is marked herewith as Annexure R-
F 3."

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.

G lt is true that the Appellant herein filed an application praying for
review of the said order dated 15th March, 1994 contending:

" ... It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent was only included
•
in the additional list of Category I in the pre-revised list and was not
allocated to any particular service. The question of appointment of
H persons included in the additional list would arise only after exhausting
i STATE OF KARNATAKA v. C. LALITHA [SINHA, J.] 981
the appointment of all the selected candidates in the main list and as A
already stated, the Respondent came to be included in the list of
Category II after the revision taken by the K.P.S.C. as directed by the
State Government at that point of time. Jt is also relevant to state here
that the Government took a decision not to operate the Additional List
and accordingly the relevant provision providing for publication of B
the Additional List as provided in Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11 of the 1966
Rules came to be deleted as per the Notification No. DPAR 46, SRR
76 dt. 21.8.76"

In the order dated 15th March, 1994, this Court noticed that the Appellant
had since been promoted to Class I Post of Assistant Commissioner. As the C
Respondent was to be appointed in the said post wall retrospective effect,
a direction was issued to create a supernumerary post therefor as otherwise
it was not necessary to issue any such direction. Furthermore, this Court
directed that the Respondent should be placed below the last candidate
appointed in 1976 meaning thereby the same post which she had been holding
at the relevant point of time. She was held not to be entitled to any back D
wages therefor.

The judgment of this Court dated 15th March, 1994 must be construed
in the aforementioned backdrop.

A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. But, it is E
also .!Veil-known that the judgment must be construed as if it had been
rendered in accordance with law.

,. In Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai, [2005] 4 SCC 772, this
Court held :
F
"A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. A
judgment, it is trite, must be construed upon reading the same as a
whole. For the said purpose the attendant circumstances may also be
taken into consideration."

[See also Zee Te/ejilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [2005] 4 G
SCC649)

In P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors., [2004)
11 SCC 672, this Court held :

"The judgment of this Court must be read as a whole and the ratio H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A therefrom is required to be culled out from reading the same in its
entirety and not only a part of it."
.. -
In Gajraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [2001] 5 SCC 762,
this Court held:

B " ... 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."
c
In N. K. Rajgrahia v. Mis Mahavir Planatation Ltd. & Ors., JT (2006)
I 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
D and purport."

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 notificatio11 dated 23rd May, 1975 which was published on
29th May, 1975 only for the post ofTehsildars whereas the Respondent herein
E was selected in terms of the notification dated 28th November, 1974. This
Court in the case of the Respondent proceeded on the basis that her case
was covered by Devin Katti, (supra) in all force, only for applying the ratio
that after the selection process had started, her status could not have been
altered by the reservation policy. Her name was not in the First List but was
p in the Additional List.

Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates
that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because
one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons
similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well-settled
G that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true
that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the
meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was
a Category I Post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust
her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her
H therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. C. LALITHA [SINHA. J.] 983
of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to . A
.....
y
··-
It is furthermore not in dispute that the correct position as regard her
ranking amongst the successful candidates had not been brought to the
notice of this court and if it had been so done, this Court would have found
that she was entitled only to the post of Assistant Controller of Accounts.
B
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
r 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 c
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
v D
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
of this Court dated 15th March, 1994 that she would be the last in the
seniority list of the appointees in the post of Category I Assistant E
Commissioner (Kamataka Administrative Service).

The Appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. However, there
~ shall be no order as to costs.
k
KG. Appeal allowed. F