In Brief
A music teacher appointed in 1984 on a leave vacancy challenged her non-regularization. An earlier High Court judgment (2006), which had attained finality, declared her entitled to hold the post. When regularization was denied, a 2014 judgment ordered it. The State challenged this via a 2018 Division Bench order, which was set aside the 2014 judgment citing an earlier Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court held that final inter-partes judgments cannot be reopened through collateral proceedings merely because subsequent judgments overrule their underlying principles. The distinction between overruling principles and reversing final judgments is fundamental. Since the teacher possessed qualifications and worked on a sanctioned post, her appointment was irregular, not illegal, and she was entitled to regularization.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.