2003 JTR(SC) 1165
2003 10 Scale 388 ; 2006 4 SCC 44 ; 2007 1 SCC(L&S) 991 ; 2003 KHC 5067
(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 44
(BEFORE V.N. KHARE, CJI., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.)
SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
UMADEVI (2) AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3595 - 3612 of 1999, 1861 - 2063,3849 of 2001, SLPs (C) Nos. 9103 - 05 of2001, 2029 - 47,8436 of 2002, CAs Nos. 3520 - 24 of 2002, SLPs (C) Nos. 12913 - 16 of 2002, CAs Nos. 3956 of 2001, 3914 - 22 of 2003 and SLP (C) ...
CCs Nos. 109 - 498 of 2003,
Decided on November 18, 2003
Conflicts of opinion between different three-judge bench decisions of the apex court regarding the constitutionality of employee regularization schemes necessitate a reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench for resolution.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.14, Art.309, Art.136, Art.38, Art.226, Art.142, Art.39(a), Art.32, Art.141, Art.16
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(4), 21, 309, 320 and 335 - Scheme for regularization of employees - Conflict of opinion between previous three-judge bench decisions - Whether such schemes are repugnant to the Constitution or consistent with fundamental rights - Matter referred to a Constitution Bench of five judges. (Paras 1 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Several appeals and special leave petitions were filed regarding the regularization of employees. It was submitted that existing schemes for regularization might be repugnant to certain constitutional provisions governing public employment and appointments. It was further noted that there were conflicting opinions expressed in various decisions delivered by three-judge benches of the apex court on the legality and consistency of such regularization schemes with the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is a genuine conflict of opinion between the decisions of different three-judge benches. Consequently, the court held that these cases require a definitive determination by a larger bench. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the scheme for regularization of employees is repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320, and 335 of the Constitution, or if it is consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 21.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a conflict of opinion between decisions of three-judge benches of the apex court on a constitutional matter, the cases must be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench to resolve the contradiction. (Para 4)
Result: Matters placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges.
Facts of the case:
Several appeals and special leave petitions were filed regarding the regularization of employees. It was submitted that existing schemes for regularization might be repugnant to certain constitutional provisions governing public employment and appointments. It was further noted that there were conflicting opinions expressed in various decisions delivered by three-judge benches of the apex court on the legality and consistency of such regularization schemes with the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is a genuine conflict of opinion between the decisions of different three-judge benches. Consequently, the court held that these cases require a definitive determination by a larger bench. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the scheme for regularization of employees is repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320, and 335 of the Constitution, or if it is consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 21.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a conflict of opinion between decisions of three-judge benches of the apex court on a constitutional matter, the cases must be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench to resolve the contradiction. (Para 4)
Result: Matters placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges.
Conflict - A Karnataka High Court judgment that brought out the conflicting opinions of various Supreme Court benches.
Regularisation - Cited as part of conflicting three-judge bench decisions regarding the regularisation of employees.
Regularisation - Cited as part of conflicting three-judge bench decisions regarding the regularisation of employees.
Regularisation - Cited as part of conflicting three-judge bench decisions regarding the regularisation of employees.
Regularisation - Cited as part of conflicting three-judge bench decisions regarding the regularisation of employees.
Regularisation - Cited as part of conflicting three-judge bench decisions regarding the regularisation of employees.
Regularisation - Cited as part of conflicting three-judge bench decisions regarding the regularisation of employees.
ORDER
1. Apart from the conflicting opinions between the three - Judge Bench decisions in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar1, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh2 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka3 on the one hand and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Venna4, State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar5 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka6 on the other, which have been brought out in one of the judgments under appeal of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Rao 7, decided on 1 - 6 - 2001 the learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the scheme for regularisation is repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the Constitution and, therefore, these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges (Constitution Bench).
2. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the employees urged that such a scheme for regularisation is consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayan, learned counsel appearing in CCs Nos. 109 - 498 of 2003, has filed the GO dated 19 - 7 - 2002 and submitted that the orders have already been implemented.
4. After having found that there is conflict of opinion between the three - Judge Bench decisions of this Court, we are of the view that these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges.
5. Let these matters be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.