2004 (9) TMI 658 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Appointment of Junior Teachers Validation) Act 1993 - Applicability of the 1973 Rules versus the 1979 Rules - Regularization of illegal appointments -Legislative competence and the scope of validating statutes - HELD THAT - This Court observed that the Validating Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 to 7 of 1959 Act or in any judgment decree order or direction of any court the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj should be deemed always to have continued to exist and they continue to exist within the limits of the Kota Municipality to all intents and for all purposes. This provision requires the deeming of the legal position that the villages of Raipura and Ummedganj fall within the limits of the Kota Municipality not the deeming of facts from which this legal consequence would flow. A legal consequence cannot be deemed nor therefrom can the events that should have preceded it. Facts may be deemed and therefrom the legal consequences that follow. (Emphasis supplied). For the reasons and on the ground that the Validating Act did not cure the defect leading to the invalidity of the inclusion of the said villages in Kota Municipality the validating Act was held to be invalid. The deeming clause in the present case is to the same effect as that of the above mentioned case. The legal consequences of appointments being regular has been deemed without deeming facts either of repealing 1979 Rules and making 1973 Rules operative or changing the basis namely definition of Selection of Board. In this view we have no hesitation in holding that Section 3(1) has to meet the same fate as was met by Validating statute in Delhi Cloth Mills case 1996 (1) TMI 431 - SUPREME COURT . The validity of the Validating Act is further assailed on the ground that it by mere declaration validates the invalid appointments without removing the basis of invalidity of the appointments made. Black s Law Dictionary (7th Edition Page no.1421) defines Validation Acts as a law that is amended either to remove errors or to add provisions to confirm to constitutional requirements . In the case of Hari Singh Ors. v. The Military Estate Officer Anr. 1972 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that The meaning of a Validating Act is to remove the causes for ineffectiveness or invalidating of actions or proceedings which are validated by a legislative measure . The Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise 2003 (11) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT observed that A Validation Act removes actual or possible voidness disability or other defect by confirming the validity of anything which is or may be invalid. The purpose of a Validating Act is to remove the cause of ineffectiveness or invalidity. A Validating Act presupposes a positive act on the part of the legislature of removing the cause of ineffectiveness or invalidity. In the present case nothing has been done. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dismissing the appeals and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The contempt petition and Special Leave Petitions were also disposed of in terms of this judgment. The Court did not express any opinion on the promotions of certain individuals leaving it to be decided by the High Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Appointment of Junior Teachers Validation) Act, 1993.
2. Applicability of the 1973 Rules versus the 1979 Rules.
3. Regularization of illegal appointments.
4. Legislative competence and the scope of validating statutes.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Validating Act:
The primary issue was the validity of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Appointment of Junior Teachers Validation) Act, 1993 (the Validating Act). The Orissa Administrative Tribunal declared the Validating Act ultra vires the Constitution, and the Orissa High Court upheld this decision. Section 3(1) of the Validating Act attempted to regularize the appointments of 49 Junior Teachers made on an ad hoc basis, despite these appointments not adhering to the 1979 Rules. The Supreme Court held that these appointments were wholly illegal as they did not follow the 1979 Rules, which required the Selection Board to include a member of the OPSC as its Chairman. The Court concluded that the Validating Act could not regularize such illegal appointments as it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Applicability of the 1973 Rules versus the 1979 Rules:
The appellants contended that the 1973 Rules should apply instead of the 1979 Rules. However, the Court noted that this argument was not raised earlier and could not be considered at this stage. The advertisement for the appointments was issued after the 1979 Rules had come into force, and the State Government sought OPSC's concurrence under these rules. The Court found that the 1979 Rules were applicable, and the appointments made without following these rules were illegal.

3. Regularization of Illegal Appointments:
The Court referred to previous judgments, including R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and Anr. and Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., to emphasize that illegal appointments cannot be regularized. The Court noted that the State Government deliberately bypassed the OPSC, and there were no equities in favor of the appellants. The Court held that the legislature could not validate illegal appointments without repealing or amending the 1979 Rules.

4. Legislative Competence and the Scope of Validating Statutes:
The Court examined the principles of validating statutes, citing cases like Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Another v. Broach Borough Municipality and Others and ITW Signode India Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise. The Court held that a Validating Act must remove the cause of invalidity, which was not done in this case. The Validating Act merely declared the appointments valid without addressing the underlying illegality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court, dismissing the appeals and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The contempt petition and Special Leave Petitions were also disposed of in terms of this judgment. The Court did not express any opinion on the promotions of certain individuals, leaving it to be decided by the High Court.