2002 (7) TMI 827 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional Validity of Bonus Marks: The award of bonus marks to residents of the district and rural areas for primary school teacher appointments.
2. Prospective Application of Judgment: Whether the judgment should apply prospectively, affecting only future appointments.
3. Relief to Petitioners: Determination of relief for the petitioners challenging the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Bonus Marks:
The primary issue was whether the circular dated 10.6.1998, which awarded bonus marks to residents of the district and rural areas, was constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned circular was a policy decision by the State Government, which had to pass the test of equality under Articles 14 and 16. The Court reiterated that residence within a district or rural area could not be a valid basis for classification for public employment. It emphasized that "residence by itself - be it within a State region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3)." The Court concluded that the award of bonus marks diluted merit and was unconstitutional as it did not promote the objective of spreading education at the primary level. It stated, "The offending part of Circular has the effect of diluting merit, without in any way promoting the objective."

2. Prospective Application of Judgment:
The Supreme Court considered whether the judgment should apply prospectively, thus not affecting appointments made prior to the judgment date. The Court noted that for nearly a decade, selections with bonus marks were upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan. It invoked the principle of prospective overruling, emphasizing that the new law should not unsettle past transactions. The Court stated, "It is, therefore, a fit case to apply the judgment of the full Bench rendered subsequent to the selection prospectively." The Court directed that appointments made up to 17.11.1999 need not be reopened, while appointments made on or after 18.11.1999 should be reconsidered in light of the judgment.

3. Relief to Petitioners:
The Supreme Court provided specific relief to the petitioners who challenged the selection process. It directed that the claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh vis-`a-vis candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. If the petitioners were found to have superior merit after excluding the bonus marks, they should be offered appointments, potentially displacing those appointed after 18.11.1999. The Court stated, "The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis a vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.99 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared the provision of bonus marks for district and rural residents unconstitutional, applied the judgment prospectively to avoid unsettling past appointments, and provided specific relief to the petitioners by directing reconsideration of their claims against post-judgment appointments. The Court's decision emphasized the need for any affirmative action to be within the constitutional framework of equality.