2012 (9) TMI 1186 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective vs. Prospective Operation of the 2009 Amendment Rules.
2. Eligibility of the Applicant under the 2004 Rules.
3. Validity of the Tribunal's Interim Orders.

Summary:

1. Retrospective vs. Prospective Operation of the 2009 Amendment Rules:

The primary issue revolved around whether the substitution of the upper age limit provision in the 2009 Rules should be considered retrospective, thereby applying from the date the original 2004 Rules came into effect. The Tribunal held that the substitution should be read as if it was part of the original 2004 Rules, thus benefiting the applicant. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the amendment came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 28.05.2009, making it prospective. The Court emphasized that statutes and rules are generally prospective unless expressly stated otherwise. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Shamrao V. Parulekar*, *Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills*, and *Gopal Krushna Rath*, to support the principle that amendments by substitution are prospective unless explicitly made retrospective.

2. Eligibility of the Applicant under the 2004 Rules:

The applicant, who was over-aged according to the 2004 Rules, applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector despite being ineligible. The Tribunal's interim orders allowed him to participate in the selection process, which he passed. The High Court noted that the applicant was aware of his ineligibility but still applied and later challenged the age limit. The Court ruled that the applicant's participation based on interim orders did not entitle him to benefit from the 2009 amendment, which was prospective. The Court highlighted that allowing the applicant's claim would unfairly disadvantage other candidates who did not apply due to the age restriction.

3. Validity of the Tribunal's Interim Orders:

The Tribunal's interim orders permitted the applicant to take the examination and participate in subsequent selection processes. The High Court found these orders to be contrary to established legal principles, as they effectively altered the recruitment rules during the ongoing selection process. The Court reiterated that recruitment rules should not be changed mid-process, as it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by denying equal opportunity to all eligible candidates.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the Tribunal's order and dismissing the applicant's claim. The selection process was directed to be completed without considering the applicant's claim, upholding the prospective nature of the 2009 amendment and maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process.