Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] as well as the subsequent decision of this Court explaining Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], we are of the view that the High Court has erred in taking an impractical view of the directions in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] as well as its consideration in Kesari [State of Karnataka v.

M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] .

5. The decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :

6. The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: (SCC pp. 250- 51, paras 9-11)"

"9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], each department or each
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid."