# D.M. PREMKUMARI '!' v. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1094
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-02-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 806 of 2009
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-m-premkumari-v-the-divisional-commissioner-mysore-division-ors-25374
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Article 142 - Complete Justice - Appellant belonged to
Telugu Shetty Community falling under reserved Group 'B'
category - She obtained job under Category 'B' - Later,
authorities found that the said caste was transferred to
D Category 'D' and held that she was not entitled to retain the
post as a person belonging to Group 'B' Category - Held:
.
'
Though Division Bench of High Court was right in holding that
she was not entitled to retain the job - However, if her
appointment is struck down it would cause great hardship to
E her - It is not the case of employer that continuation of her
service would cause prejudice to any one -To do complete
justice, employer directed not to dislodge the appellant from
the post held by her.
Appellant belonged to "Telugu Shetty Communty".
F She claimed reservation under category 'B' as provided
under the clarification order passed by the Government.
She was appointed under the said category as Primary
School Teacher. After the selection, authorities sought for
verification of the caste certificate from the District
G Committee and found that the 'Telugu Balija' caste was
transferred to Group 'D' category and as the appellant
had sought reservation in Group 'B' category, she was
:.t
•
not entitled to retain the post of Primary School Teacher
as a person belonging to Group 'B' category. Accordingly
H
1094
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL
1095
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.
~·-y
it was held that appellant was not entitled to retain the
A
said post which was upheld by appellate authority.
Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Single
Judge allowed the same. Division Bench allowed the writ
appeal.
In appeal to this Court, appellant took plea of her B
pathetic financial condition.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD :1. Deciding this case on merits, and telling the c
appellant that she has to go out of the employment,
would cause great hardship and injustice to the
appellant. [Para 11) [1098-G]
2. The District Committee, which was asked to verify D
~ ·~
the appellant's claim, is justified in informing the
appointing authorities that, strictly going by the
Government's orders issued in 1986, the appellant could
not claim any reservation under Group 'B' category.
However, the Single Judge, may have taken a very
E
sympathetic view of the matter, and came to the rescue
of a poor primary school teacher. The Division Bench
strictly applied the true interpretation that requires to be
placed while constituting Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of
i
the Constitution. Therefore, there was no fault with the
orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
F
...
also. [Para 13) [1099-B-D]
3. This Court, while entertaining the special leave
petition, had granted the status-quo order. By virtue of
that order, the appellant is continuing to work as a
primary school teacher. At this stage, if the appointment G
:
)I
of the appellant is struck down and if she is now asked
to seek employment elsewhere, it would cause great
hardship and injustice, for the reason that by now she
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 1 S.C.R.
A must have crossed the upper age limit for seeking public
~
~~
employment and she may not get any employment
anywhere. It is not the case of the other side also, that if
the appellant's service is continued, it would cause any
prejudice to any other applicant. [Para 14] [1099-D-F]
B
4. "The law is merciless", is a most frequently quoted
saying. It has led people to mistakenly think that it is
separated from feelings of righteousness. Such emotions
~
as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist
c
in legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of
justice and it works to maintain social justice and
fairness. However, judiciary does not believe in misplaced
sympathy. [Para 15] [1099-G-H; 1100-A]
D
5. In order to do complete justice, the respondents
are directed not to dislodge the

## Text

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1094
A
D.M. PREMKUMARI
'!'-
v.
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 806 of 2009)
B
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Article 142 - Complete Justice - Appellant belonged to
Telugu Shetty Community falling under reserved Group 'B'
category - She obtained job under Category 'B' - Later,
authorities found that the said caste was transferred to
D Category 'D' and held that she was not entitled to retain the
post as a person belonging to Group 'B' Category - Held:
.
'
Though Division Bench of High Court was right in holding that
she was not entitled to retain the job - However, if her
appointment is struck down it would cause great hardship to
E her - It is not the case of employer that continuation of her
service would cause prejudice to any one -To do complete
justice, employer directed not to dislodge the appellant from
the post held by her.
Appellant belonged to "Telugu Shetty Communty".
F She claimed reservation under category 'B' as provided
under the clarification order passed by the Government.
She was appointed under the said category as Primary
School Teacher. After the selection, authorities sought for
verification of the caste certificate from the District
G Committee and found that the 'Telugu Balija' caste was
transferred to Group 'D' category and as the appellant
had sought reservation in Group 'B' category, she was
:.t
•
not entitled to retain the post of Primary School Teacher
as a person belonging to Group 'B' category. Accordingly
H
1094
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL
1095
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.
~·-y
it was held that appellant was not entitled to retain the
A
said post which was upheld by appellate authority.
Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Single
Judge allowed the same. Division Bench allowed the writ
appeal.
In appeal to this Court, appellant took plea of her B
pathetic financial condition.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD :1. Deciding this case on merits, and telling the c
appellant that she has to go out of the employment,
would cause great hardship and injustice to the
appellant. [Para 11) [1098-G]
2. The District Committee, which was asked to verify D
~ ·~
the appellant's claim, is justified in informing the
appointing authorities that, strictly going by the
Government's orders issued in 1986, the appellant could
not claim any reservation under Group 'B' category.
However, the Single Judge, may have taken a very
E
sympathetic view of the matter, and came to the rescue
of a poor primary school teacher. The Division Bench
strictly applied the true interpretation that requires to be
placed while constituting Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of
i
the Constitution. Therefore, there was no fault with the
orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
F
...
also. [Para 13) [1099-B-D]
3. This Court, while entertaining the special leave
petition, had granted the status-quo order. By virtue of
that order, the appellant is continuing to work as a
primary school teacher. At this stage, if the appointment G
:
)I
of the appellant is struck down and if she is now asked
to seek employment elsewhere, it would cause great
hardship and injustice, for the reason that by now she
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 1 S.C.R.
A must have crossed the upper age limit for seeking public
~
~~
employment and she may not get any employment
anywhere. It is not the case of the other side also, that if
the appellant's service is continued, it would cause any
prejudice to any other applicant. [Para 14] [1099-D-F]
B
4. "The law is merciless", is a most frequently quoted
saying. It has led people to mistakenly think that it is
separated from feelings of righteousness. Such emotions
~
as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist
c
in legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of
justice and it works to maintain social justice and
fairness. However, judiciary does not believe in misplaced
sympathy. [Para 15] [1099-G-H; 1100-A]
D
5. In order to do complete justice, the respondents
are directed not to dislodge the appellant from the post
•
4
of primary school teacher. [Para 16] [1100-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 806
E of 2009.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2006 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 4031/
2003(S-RES).
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant.
..
F
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents
...
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
G
ORDER
Leave granted.
"
~
(1) The appellant calls in question the legality or otherwise
of the judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench
H of High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.4031 of 2003,
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL
1097
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.
dated 9th day of January, 2006.
A
·-y
(2) The appellant belongs to 'Telugu Shetty Community".
She claimed reservation under category 'B' as provided under
the Classification Order passed by the Government of
Karnataka for the purposes of Backward Class Citizens under
B
Article 15(4) ofthe Constitution. She was selected and
appointed under the said category as Primary School teacher
by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysore.
(3) The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mysore, after c
appointment of the appellant, had sought for verification of caste
and income certificate from the District Committee for
Backward Classes and minorities for issue of certificate. The
Committee, vide its proceedings dated 08.04.1996, was of the
view thatthe 'Telugu Balija' caste has been transferred to Group
'D' category and as the appellant had sought reservation in
D
• -t·
Group 'B' category, she would not be entitled to retain the post
of Primary School Teacher as a person belonging to Group 'B'
category.
(4) The appellant, being aggrieved by the orders passed
E
by the District Committee, had preferred an appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner, Mysore.
(5) The Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated
"
07.02.2000, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant
and thereby has confirmed the orders passed by the District
F
•
Committee .
(6) The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, had approached the High
Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.10843 of 2000. The
G
Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 05.03.2003, has
allowed the writ petition and has set aside the orders passed
by the Divisional Commissioner and also the orders passed
by the District Caste Verification Committee.
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 1 S.C.R.
A
(7) The State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by
'i' ·-
the learned Single Judge, had preferred Writ Appeal No.4031
of 2003. The Appellate Forum has allowed the State's appeal
and, thereby, has set aside the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge.
B
(8) The appellant, being aggrieved by the orders passed
by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ
Appeal No.4031 of 2003, is before us in this appeal.
-+
~
(9) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
c parties to the lis.
(10) Shri P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant would inform us the pathetic financial condition
of the appellant and her family members and also would tell us,
D that, if for any reason, the appellant's appointment is struck
down, the family of the appellant might have to lead the life of
....
penury, and therefore, requests us to set aside the orders
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka
and confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Shri
E Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State would justify the orders passed by the
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal
No.4031 of 2003.
(11) Having given our anxious consideration to the case
..
F pleaded by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view, that, it would not be desirable to decide this case on
--
merits. If we have to do it, we might have to tell the appellant
that she might have to go out of the employment. This, in our
opinion, would cause great hardship and injustice to the
G appellant.
(12) The appellant, as we have noticed earlier, was
appointed as a Primary School Teacher sometime in the year
1994. At the time of her appointment, she had produced the
H caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar. She might not have
D.M. PREMKUMARI v. THE DIVISIONAL
1099
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION & ORS.
- ')-"
understood the nuances of legal terminologies like Group 'B'
A
Category, Group 'D' Category etc., and therefore, now she is
caught in the "cobweb."
(13) The District Caste Verification Committee, which was
asked to verify the appellant's claim, is justified in informing the
B
appointing authorities that, strictly going by the Government's
orders issued in 1986, the appellant could not have claimed
~ 1'
any reservation under Group 'B' category. We cannot find fault
-
with their understanding of the Government Order. However, the
learned Single Judge, may be taking a very sympathetic view c
of the matter, has come to the rescue of a poor primary school
teacher. The Division Bench has strictly applied the true
interpretation that requires to be placed while constituting Article
15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, we cannot
find fault with the orders passed by the Division Bench of the
D
Karnataka High Court also.
•"--t
(14) This Court, while entertaining the special leave
petition, had granted the status-quo order. By virtue of that order,
the appellant is continuing to work as a primary school teacher.
At this stage, if the appointment of the appellant is struck down
E
and if she is now asked to seek employment elsewhere, in our
opinion, it would cause great hardship and injustice, for the
reason by now she must have crossed the upper age limit for
seeking public employment and she may not get any
"
employment anywhere. It is not the case of the other side also,
F
-
that if the appellant's service is continued, it would cause any
prejudice to any other applicant.
-<
(15) "The law is merciless", is a most frequently quoted
saying. It has led people to mistakenly think that it is separated
G
from feelings of righteousness. We have become used to the
understanding that such emotions as indignation, sorrow and
.
""
compassion should not exist in legal cases, especially not in
judiciary. This, in our view, is a mis-understanding. Judiciary has
a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009) 1 S.C.R.
A justice and fairness. We hasten to add, judiciary does not
believe in misplaced sympathy.
(16) In view of the above discussion and keeping in view
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose
8 of this appeal, without going into the merits of the case. In order
to do complete justice, we direct the respondents herein, not
to dislodge the appellant from the post of primary school
teacher. This order of ours shall not be treated as a precedent
in any other case.
C
(17) The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be
no order as to costs.
D.G.
Appeal disposed of.
...
-