1997 (3) TMI 602 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of promotions of respondents under reservation rules.
2. Constitutionality of reservation in promotions.
3. Prospective overruling of Rangachari's case.
4. Application of Article 142 and its implications on fundamental rights.

Summary:

1. Validity of Promotions of Respondents:
The appeal arises from the Allahabad High Court's judgment, where petitioners challenged the promotions of respondents to various engineering positions in the Public Works Department of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain promotions and a writ of certiorari to quash specific promotion orders.

2. Constitutionality of Reservation in Promotions:
The Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Public Works Department) (Higher) Rules, 1990, effective from October 15, 1990, provided for reservation in promotions. The rules included provisions for reservation for Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes (Tribes). The petitioners contended that the reservation in promotions was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which declared reservation in promotions unconstitutional under Articles 16(2) and 16(4).

3. Prospective Overruling of Rangachari's Case:
The petitioners argued that the judgment in Mandal's case, which prospectively overruled the applicability of reservation in promotions for five years from November 16, 1992, was a minority judgment and thus unconstitutional. However, the Court held that the prospective overruling was valid and the promotions made within the five-year period were constitutional.

4. Application of Article 142 and its Implications on Fundamental Rights:
The Court examined whether the prospective overruling of Rangachari's case under Article 142 amounted to judicial legislation and violated fundamental rights. It concluded that the power under Article 142 is a constituent power that transcends statutory prohibitions and is intended to do complete justice. The direction to postpone the operation of the judgment for five years was a valid exercise of this power and did not violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and writ petition, upholding the validity of the promotions of respondents and the constitutionality of reservation in promotions. The Court affirmed that the prospective overruling of Rangachari's case was a majority judgment and a valid exercise of judicial power under Article 142, ensuring a smooth transition and balancing competing rights.