{"id":263346,"date":"1992-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992"},"modified":"2017-02-08T17:03:22","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T11:33:22","slug":"karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 677, 1992 SCR (1) 397<\/div>\n
Author: R Sahai<\/div>\n
Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAPLECTURERS ASSOCIATIO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/01\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  677\t\t  1992 SCR  (1) 397\n 1992 SCC  (2)\t29\t  JT 1992 (1)\t373\n 1992 SCALE  (1)198\n\n\nACT:\n     Service  Law-Private  Degree  Aided  Colleges-Teachers-\nKarnataka  Government's\t order\tdated  3rd  October,   1982-\nProvision  for ad-hoc appointments and\treappointments\twith\none  day's break in service-Provision for payment  of  fixed\nsalary\tbeing  ten  rupees less than  the  minimum  paid  to\nregular\t teachers-Validity of-Provision for one day's  break\nin  service  held  ultra vires-Payment of  fixed  salary  to\ntemporary teachers held orbitrary-Directions for  continuing\nservices  of  temporary teachers, their\t regularisation\t and\npayment\t of  salary  on par with  regular  teachers  issued-\nPractice of ad-hoc appointments deprecated.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  Education  and Youth Services\t Department  of\t the\nState  of Karnataka issued an order dated 3rd  October\t1981\nwhich  provided\t two  different\t methods  of  selection\t  of\nteachers  in private aided degree colleges-one by  Selection\nCommittee  and\tanother\t by  Management.   Under  the  order\nappointments  for more than three months could be made by  a\nselection committee whereas temporary appointments for\tless\nthan  3\t months\t could be made by the  Management  and\tsuch\ntemporary  appointments\t could\tbe continued  for  a  futher\nperiod\tof not more than 3 months, with one day's  break  in\nservice.   The\tGovernment  order also\tprovided  that\tsuch\ntemporary  teachers  shall be paid fixed  salary  being\t ten\nrupees\tless than the minimum payable to  regular  teachers.\nThe  teachers  temporarily appointed under  the\t said  order\naccordingly continued in service for a long period but\twith\na break of a day or two every three months in their service.\nSubsequently,  they  filed  a writ petition  in\t this  Court\nseeking\t regularisation of their services by  invoking\t the\nprinciple   of\tequitable  estoppel  arising  from   implied\nassurance  due to their long continuance.  It was  contended\non  behalf of the petitioners that; (i) since the State\t has\nregularised  the  services of contract\tteachers  and  local\nteachers  appointed  in Government  or\tvocational  colleges\nthey  should  also he extended similar treatment;  and\t(ii)\npayment\t of fixed salary instead of regular  emoluments\t for\neight months in a year was discriminatory and arbitrary.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   398\n     Allowing the petition, this Court,\n     HELD: 1. Provision of one day's break in service in the\nGovernment  order is deprecated and is struck down as  ultra\nvires.\t If  the  intention  was  to  differentiate  between\nappointments for more than three months and others it was  a\nfutile exercise.  That was already achieved by providing two\ndifferent  methods of selection one by\tSelection  Committee\nand  other by Management.  Distinction\tbetween\t appointment\nagainst temporary and permanent vacancies are well known  in\nservice\t law.  It was unnecessary to make it  appear  crude.\nIf  the\t purpose  was  to  avoid  any  possible\t claim\t for\nregularisation by the temporary teachers then it was  acting\nmore  like a private business house of narrow  outlook\tthan\ngovernment  of\ta  welfare State.    Such  provisions cannot\nwithstand the test of arbitrariness.  [403 G; 402 A-B]\n     B.R. Parineeth & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka &\tOrs.\nCMW 6232 of 1990 decided on 3.7.1990,  referred to.\n     2.\t Order\tfor  payment of fixed  salary  to  temporary\nteachers  is  declared\tinvalid.   An  appointment  may\t  be\ntemporary or permanent but the nature of work being same and\nthe temporary appointment may be due to exigency of service,\nnon-availability   of  permanent  vacancy  or  as   stop-gap\narrangement  till  the regular selection is  completed,\t yet\nthere  can  be\tno justification for paying  a\tteacher,  so\nappointed, a fixed salary by adopting a different method  of\npayment than a regular teacher.\t Fixation of such emoluments\nis   arbitrary\t and  violative\t of  Article   14<\/a>   of\t the\nConstitution. [403 G; 402 F-G]\n     2.1 Payment of nearly eight months' salary by resorting\nto government order and, that too fixed amount, for the same\njob  which  is performed by regular teachers is\t unfair\t and\nunjust.\t  Such injustice is abhorring to the  constitutional\nscheme. [403 A-B;]\n     3.\t The  practice of management of not  making  regular\nselection utmost within six months of occurrence of  vacancy\nis condemned.  The helplessness expressed by the State\tthat\nthe  managements  went on continuing such  teachers  without\nholding\t regular  selections despite orders  of\t educational\nauthorities  may be true but not convincing and sounds\tlike\nsurrender in favour of private managements. [403 C, 402 E]\n     3.1  Managements shall take steps, whenever  necessary,\nto  fill  up permanent vacancies in accordance\twith  rules.\nDelay in filling\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       399\nup  the\t vacancies  shall  not\tentitle\t the  management  or\ndirector  to terminate the  services of\t temporary  teachers\nexcept\tfor  adequate  reasons.\t But it\t shall\tentitle\t the\ngovernment  to\ttake such steps\t including  supersession  of\nmanagement or stopping grants-in-aid if premitted under\t law\nto compel the institutions to comply with the rules. [404 B]\n     4. Regularisation of services of teachers of Government\ncolleges  by  the  State  may not  furnish,  any  basis\t for\npetitioners to claim that the state may be directed to issue\nsimilar order regularizing services of teachers of privately\nmanaged\t colleges.   All the same such policy  decisions  of\ngovernment  in favour  of one or the other set of  employees\nof   sister   department  are  bound  to  raise\t  hope\t and\nexpectations in employees of other departments.\t  Therefore,\nit  is\tincumbent on governments to be more  circumspect  in\ntaking such decisions. [404 E-G]\n     5.\t Ad-hoc\t appointments,\ta convenient  way  of  entry\nusually\t from backdoor, at times even in disregard of  rules\nand regulations, are comparatively recent innovation to\t the\nservice\t jurisprudence.\t  The  infection  is  widespread  in\ngovernment or semi-government departments or State  financed\ninstitutions.\t Malady\t  appears  to\tbe   widespread\t  in\neducational institutions as provisions for temporary or\t ad-\nhoc  appointments have been exploited by the managements  of\nprivate aided colleges to their advantage by filling it,  on\none  hand,  with  persons of own  choice,  at  time  without\nfollowing the procedure and keeping the teachers exposed  to\nthreat\t of  termination,  on  the  other,  with  all\tevil\nconsequences flowing out of it. Any institution run by State\nfund  but  managed privately is bound to  suffer  from\tsuch\ninherent drawbacks. [400 G-H; 401 C-D]\n     6.\t  In  the  circumstances  of  the   case   following\ndirections are issued:-\n\t a)  Any  teacher  appointed  temporarily  shall  be\n\t continued  till the purpose for which he  has\tbeen\n\t appointed  exhausts  or  if it\t is  in\t waiting  of\n\t regular selection then till such selection is made;\n\t [404 A]\n\t  b)  Services of such temporary teachers  who\thave\n\t worked as such for three years, including the break\n\t till today shall not be terminated.  They shall  be\n\t absorbed as  and when regular vacancies arise; [405\n\t B]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     400\n\t c)  If\t regular  selections  have  been  made\t the\n\t government   shall   creat  additional\t  posts\t  to\n\t accommodate such selected candidates; [405 B]\n\t  d)  From  the\t date of  judgment  every  temporary\n\t teacher  shall be paid salary as is  admissible  to\n\t teachers appointed against permanent post. [405 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 873 of
\n1990.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitiution of India)
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\nContempt Petition No. 6 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 309 to 373 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     R.K. Garg, Kapil Sibal, V. Lakshmi Narayanan, D.K. Garg
\nand P. Mahale for the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     R.N.  Narasimhamurthy, Kh. Nobin Singh and M.  Veerappa
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     R.M.  SAHAI,  J.  Teachers\t appointed  temporarily\t for
\nthree  months or less, by privately managed degree  colleges
\nreceiving    cent   per\t  cent\t grant-in-aid,\t  controlled
\nadministratively   and\t financially  by   the\t Educational
\nDepartment of the State of Karnataka, seek regularisation of
\ntheir services\t by invoking principle of equitable estoppel
\narising from implied assurance due to their continuance,  as
\nsuch,  for  years with a break of a day or two\tevery  three
\nmonths.\t  Another  basis  for  direction  to  regularise  is
\nfounded\t on denial of similar treatment by the State as\t has
\nbeen  extended\tto  contract  teachers\tand  local  teachers
\nappointed in government or vocational colleges.\t Payment  of
\nfixed salary instead of regular emoluments for eight  months
\nin  a year and that too for number of years is\tyet  another
\ngrievance.\n<\/p>\n
     Ad-hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry  usually
\nfrom   back-door, at times even in disregard  of  rules\t and
\nregulations,  are  comparatively recent\t innovation  to\t the
\nservice jurisprudence.\tThey are individual problem to begin
\nwith,  become a family problem with passage of time and\t end
\nwith human problem in court of law.  It is unjust and unfair
\nto those who are lesser fortunate in society with little  or
\nno  approach even though better qualified, more\t meritorious
\nand well deserving.  The infection is
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       401<\/span>
\nwidespread in government or semi-government departments\t  of
\nState  financed institutions.  It arises either because\t the
\nappointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a  favour
\nor  to\taccommodate  someone or for  any  extraneous  reason
\nignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment as a
\npretext\t under\temergency measure or to avoid loss  of\twork
\netc.   Or  the rules or circulars issued by  the  department
\nitself\tempower\t the  authority\t to  do\t so  as\t a  stop-gap
\narrangement.   The  former  is an abuse\t of  power.   It  is
\nunpardonable.  Even if it is found to have been resorted  to
\nas  a  genuine\temergency  measure  the\t courts\t should\t  be
\nreluctant  to  grant  indulgence.   Latter  gives  rise\t  to
\nequities  which\t have bothered courts every  now  and  then.
\nMalady appears to be widespread in educational\tinstitutions
\nas provisions for temporary or ad-hoc appointments have been
\nexploited  by the managements of private aided\tcolleges  to
\ntheir advantage by filling it, on one hand, with persons  of
\nown  choice, at times without following the  procedure,\t and
\nkeeping\t the teachers exposed to threat of  termination,  on
\nthe  other,  with all evil consequences flowing out  of\t it.
\nAny  institution run by State fund but managed privately  is
\nbound  to suffer from such inherent drawbacks.\tIn State  of
\nKarnataka  it  is basically State  created  problem  due  to
\ndefective  rule and absence of any provsions to\t effectively
\ndeal with such a situation.\n<\/p>\n
     What is surprising is that till today the State has not
\nbeen  able to bring out a comprehensive legislation on\tsuch
\nan  important  aspect  as  education  and  the\tappointment,
\nselection,  promotion, transfer, payment of salary  etc.  of
\nteachers is regulated by government orders issued from\ttime
\nto  time.  Since 1980  it is governed by an order issued  by
\nEducational  and Youth Services Department of the  State  of
\nKarnataka on 3rd October, 1981.\t Clause 5 of the Order reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Any  appoinment  for a period of three  months  or
\n\t less  in  a  College  shall  be  made,\t subject  to
\n\t approval of the Director within one month from\t the
\n\t date  of  appointment\tby the\tManagement  or\tsuch
\n\t authority  as the Management by Order, may  specify
\n\t in  that behalf.  Such temporary appointments\tmay,
\n\t however,  be continued for a further period of\t not
\n\t more  than three months, with one day’s break\twhen
\n\t selection through the Selection Committee is likely
\n\t to take time.\tThe Director may, for reasons to  be
\n\t recorded  in writing refuse approval for  the\tsaid
\n\t appointment  and  the\tservices of  the  person  so
\n\t appointed shall be terminated forthwith.”
\n     Appointments  for more than three months is to be by  a
\nregularly constituted selection committee under clause 4  of
\nthe  order.   But if is for three months or  less  than\t the
\nappointment could be made by the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    402<\/span>
\nManagement  under  clause  5  subject  to  approval  by\t the
\nDirector.  It could be continued for further period of three
\nmonths\tif there was delay in regular appointment.  But\t the
\ndirection  to  re-appoint  with\t one  day’s  break  is\t not
\nunderstandable.\t  If  the  intention  was  to  differentiate
\nbetween\t appointments for more than three months and  others
\nit was a futile exercise.  That had already been achieved by
\nproviding   two\t different  methods  of\t selection  one\t  by
\nSelection  Committee and ohter by  Management.\t Distinction
\nbetween\t  appointment\tagainst\t temporary   and   permanent
\nvacancies are well known in service law.  It was unnecessary
\nto  make it appear crude.  If the purpose was to  avoid\t any
\npossible claim for regularisation by the temporary  teachers
\nthen  it  was acting more like a private business  house  of
\nnarrow\toutlook\t than government of a welfare  State.\tSuch
\nprovisions cannot withstand the test of arbitrariness.\tThat
\nis why the High Court, while disposing of CMW 6232 of 1990 –
\nB.R.  Parineeth & Ors. v.  The State of Karnataka &  Others<\/a>,
\nalong with many other petitions by its order dated 3rd July,
\n1990,  criticised  such practice as  pernicious.   The\trule
\nmaking\tauthority  lost sight of fact that such\t policy\t was
\nlikely\tto give dominance to vested interests who  leave  no
\nopportunity  to\t exploit  the educated\tyouth  who  have  to
\nsurvive\t even at cost of one meal a day.  That\tis  apparent
\nfrom  continuance of these teachers for 8 to 10\t years\twith
\nsword  of termination hanging on their head ready to  strike
\nevery three months at the instance of either the  management
\nor  the Director.  Provision of stop-gap appointments  might
\nhave  been  well intended and may be necessary as  well\t but
\ntheir  improper use results in abuse.  And that is what\t has
\nhappened  on a large scale.  The helplessness  expressed  by
\nthe State in the counter-affidavit that the managements went
\non   continuing\t such  teachers\t without   holding   regular
\nselections despite orders of educational authorities may  be
\ntrue but not convincing.  It sounds like surrender in favour
\nof private managements.\n<\/p>\n
     Another obnoxious part is the emoluments that have been
\npaid to the temporary teachers.\t The order provides that the
\nteacher\t shall\tbe paid a fixed salary which is\t ten  rupees
\nless  than  the minimum payable to regular  employee.\tThis
\nmethod\tof  payment  is\t again\tbeyond\tcomprehension.\t  An
\nappointment may be temporary or permanent but the nature  of
\nwork being same and the temporary appointment may be due  to
\nexigency  of service, non-availability of permanent  vacancy
\nor  as\tstop-gap arrangement till the regular  selection  is
\ncompleted,  yet there can be no justification for  paying  a
\nteacher, so appointed a fixed salary by adopting a different
\nmethod of payment than a regular teacher.  Fixation of\tsuch
\nemoluments  is arbitrary and violative of Article 14<\/a> of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe evil inherent in it is that\t apart\tfrom
\nthe  teachers being at the beck and call of  the  management
\nare  in\t danger of being exploited as has been done  by\t the
\nmanagement
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       403<\/span>
\ncommittees  of\tState  of Karnataka who\t have  utilized\t the
\nservices  of  these teachers for 8 to 10 years by  paying  a
\nmeagre\tsalary\twhen  probably during this  period  if\tthey
\nwould  have been paid according to the salary payable  to  a
\nregular\t teacher  they would have been\tgetting\t much  more.
\nPayment\t of  nearly eight months’ salary,  by  resorting  to
\nclause 5, and, that too fixed amount, for the same job which
\nis  performed by regular teachers is unfair and\t unjust.   A
\ntemporary or ad-hoc employee may not have a claim to  become
\npermanent  without  facing selection or\t being\tabsorded  in
\naccordance with rules but no discrimination can be made\t for
\nsame job on basis of method of recruitment.  Such  injustice
\nis abhorring to the constitutional scheme.\n<\/p>\n
     While deprecating direction by the government to  break
\nservice\t for  a\t day  or two  and  paying  fixed  salary  to
\ntemporary   employees  we  must\t condemn  the  practice\t  of
\nmanagement of not making regular selection utmost within six
\nmonths\tof occurrence of vacancy.  Nor the  helplessness  of
\ngovernment  can be appreciated as expressed in\tthe  counter
\naffidavit that despite orders the management continued\twith
\nit.   If  the government could not  take  effective  measure
\neither\tby superseding the management or stopping  grant-in-
\naid   then  either  it\twas  working  under  pressure\tfrom
\nManagement  of\tthe  private aided institutions\t or  it\t was
\nitself\tinterested in continuing such unfortunate  state  of
\naffairs.   In  either case the equities\t have  been  created
\nbecause\t of  doing  of state itself,  therefore,  it  should
\nresolve\t it.  One such method was adopted by the High  Court
\nin  invididual petitions filed by the teachers by  directing
\nthe  Director of Education to hold selection.  In  pursuance
\nof  it\tsome  of the teachers have  been  regularised.\t But
\nsubstantial number still remain due to State’s going back on
\nits  agreement\tbefore the court by  creating  obstacles  in
\nimplementation\tof  the order.\tMany of them who  have\thave
\nfaced  selection  and have secured higher marks and  are  in
\nzone of selection are being denied the benefit because it is
\nclaimed\t that  such  regularisation  would  be\tcontrary  to
\nreservation  policy  of\t the State.   The  policy  is  under
\nchallenge  in  another proceedings in  the  Court.   Without
\nentering  into\tvalidity of the policy\twhich  according  to
\npetitioner  results in cent per cent reservation we  are  of
\nopinion\t that  such  practice  should  be  put\tan  end\t to,
\ntherefore, following directions are necessary to be issued:
\n\t (1)  Provision\t in clause 5 of one day’s  break  in
\n\t service is struck down as ultra vires.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2)\tOrders\tfor  payment  of  fixed\t salary\t  to
\n\t temporary  teachers  is declared invalid.   But  it
\n\t shall\toperate prospectively.\tA teacher  appointed
\n\t temporarily  shall  be\t paid  the  salary  that  is
\n\t admissible to any teacher appointed regularly.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t    404<\/span><\/p>\n
\t (3)  Any  teacher appointed  temporarily  shall  be
\n\t continued  till the purpose for which he  has\tbeen
\n\t appointed  exhausts  or  if it\t is  in\t waiting  of
\n\t regular selection then till such selection is made.
\n\t  (4)\tManagement   shall  take   steps,   whenever
\n\t necessary,  to\t fill  up  permanent  vacancies\t  in
\n\t accordance  with  rules.  Delay in filling  up\t the
\n\t vacancies  shall  not\tentitle\t the  management  or
\n\t Director  to  terminate the services  of  temporary
\n\t teachers except for adequate reasons.\tBut it shall
\n\t entitle the government to take such steps including
\n\t supersession  of management or stopping  grants-in-
\n\t aid   if   permitted  under  law  to\tcompel\t the
\n\t institutions to comply with the rules.\n<\/p>\n
     So\t  far  these  petitioners  and\tteachers   similarly
\nsituated  are concerned, it could not be disputed that\tmany
\nof those teachers who appeared for selection in pursuance of
\nthe  High  Court order secured sufficiently high  marks\t but
\nthey could not be regularised because the vacancies are said
\nto  be\treserved.  But what has been lost sight of  is\tthat
\npetitioners  are  seeking regularisation on posts  on  which
\nthey   have  been  working  and\t not   fresh   appointments,
\ntherefore,  they  could not be denied benefit  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt’s\t order specially when no such difficulty was pointed
\nout  and  it was on agreement by the  respondents  that\t the
\norder was passed.  No material has been brought on record to
\nshow that any action was taken prior to decision by the High
\nCourt\tagainst\t any  institution  for\tnot  following\t the
\nreservation  policy.   To  deny\t therefore  the\t benefit  of
\nselection  held\t on agreement by the  respondents  is  being
\nunjust\tto such selectees.  Further the State  of  Karnataka
\nappears\t  to  have  been  regularising\tservices  of   adhoc
\nteachers.  Till now it has regularised services of  contract
\nlecturers,\t  local\t       candidates,\t  University
\nlecturers,Engineering  colleges, lecturers etc.\t It may\t not
\nfurnish,  any basis for petitioners to claim that the  State
\nmay be directed to issue similar order regularsing  services
\nof  teachers  of privately managed colleges.  All  the\tsame
\nsuch policy decisions of government in favour of one or\t the
\nother  set  of employees of sister department are  bound  to
\nraise\thopes  and  expectations  in  employees\t  of   other
\ndepartments.  That is why it is incumbent on governments  to
\nbe   more  circumspect\tin  taking  such   decisions.\t The
\npetitioners  may  not be able to build up any  challenge  on
\ndiscrimination\tas  employees  of  government  colleges\t and
\nprivate colleges may not belong to the same class yet  their
\nclaim  cannot be negatived on the respondents’ stand in\t the
\ncounter\t affidavit  that  the  regularisation  of  temporary
\nteachers   who\thave  not  faced  selection   shall   impair
\neducational  standard  without\texplaining  the\t effect\t  of
\nregularisation of temporary teachers of University and\teven
\ntechnical  colleges.   Such being the unfortunate  state  of
\naffairs\t this  Court  is left with no option  but  to  issue
\nfollowing  directions  to respondents for not  honoring\t its
\ncom-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       405<\/span><\/p>\n
mitments  before the High court and acting contrary  to\t the
\nspirit of the order, and also due to failure of governemt in
\nremaining vigilant against private management of the college
\nby issuing timely directions and taking effective steps\t for
\nenforcing the rules:\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t Services of such temporary teachers who have worked
\n\t as  such for three years, including the break\ttill
\n\t today\tshall  not  be terminated.   They  shall  be
\n\t absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise.
\n    (2)\t If regular selections have been made the  governemt
\n\t shall\tcreate additional posts to accommodate\tsuch
\n\t selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n
    (3)\t The  teachers\twho have undergone  the\t process  of
\n\t selection  under the directions of the\t High  Court
\n\t and have been appointed because of the\t reservation
\n\t policy of the Government be regularly appointed  by
\n\t creating additional posts.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t From the date of judgment every temporary   teacher
\n\t shall\tbe paid salary as is admissible to  teachers
\n\t appointed against permanent post.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t Such  teachers shall be continued in  service\teven
\n\t during vacations.\n<\/p>\n
     For  these\t reasons  this\tpetition  succeeds  and\t  is
\nallowed.   The\tdirection is issued to\trespondents  in\t the
\nterms indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil  Appeal Nos. 309-373 of 1992 arising out  of\t SLP
\n(Civil) Nos. 13131-95 of 1990 challenging the order of\tHigh
\nCourt  in  CMW\t6232 of 1990 decided on 3rd  July,  1990  is
\ndisposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     Contempt  Petition No. 6 of 1991 alleging violation  of
\nstatus\tquo  order granted in W.P. (Civil) No. 873  of\t1990
\nneed not be decided.  It is directed to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
     The  petitioners shall be entitled to their  cost\tfrom
\nthe State of Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A.\t\t\t\t\t  Petition allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   406<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 677, 1992 SCR (1) 397 Author: R Sahai Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J) PETITIONER: KARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAPLECTURERS ASSOCIATIO Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/01\/1992 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-263346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKarnataka State Private College ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka State Private College ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T11:33:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T11:33:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\"},\"wordCount\":2404,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\",\"name\":\"Karnataka State Private College ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T11:33:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka State Private College ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka State Private College ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T11:33:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992","datePublished":"1992-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T11:33:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992"},"wordCount":2404,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992","name":"Karnataka State Private College ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T11:33:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-private-college-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-january-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka State Private College … vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 January, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263346","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}