2019 (4) TMI 2045 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of principle of prospective overruling - Predicament of candidates consequent to conflicting opinions in different decisions of the High Court - award of bonus marks to candidates seeking appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers in Zila Parishad of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-99 - HELD THAT - A number of impleadment applications have been filed by aspirants anxiously waiting and hoping of favourable outcome in the foreclosed and covered litigation. They cannot succeed and these applications are dismissed. It is informed that there are a large number of vacant posts and, therefore, it has been contended that the benefit should be extended. The candidates who had not filed writ petitions on or before November 17, 1999 would not be entitled to appointment upon recalculation of marks by exclusion of bonus marks from the marks of the selected candidates. The direction would not apply to individual cases where the principle of res judicata would apply, i.e. wherein the decision of the Single Judge or the Division Bench has become final since it was not challenged before the Division Bench or before this Court. Application disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Conflicting opinions on the principle of prospective overruling.
2. Constitutionality of awarding bonus marks in public employment.
3. Relief to candidates affected by the unconstitutional award of bonus marks.
4. Application of the doctrine of prospective overruling.
5. Validity of appointments made before and after a specific cutoff date.
6. Interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's directions in previous judgments.
7. Doctrine of res judicata versus law of precedent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflicting Opinions on the Principle of Prospective Overruling:
The judgment addresses the predicament of candidates due to conflicting opinions from different High Court decisions regarding the principle of prospective overruling as directed in *Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.* (2002) 6 SCC 562. This litigation, ongoing since 1999, has become highly complicated, as noted by the Court.

2. Constitutionality of Awarding Bonus Marks in Public Employment:
The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in *Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan* declared the award of bonus marks to candidates for the post of Primary School Teachers unconstitutional. The Court ruled that any weightage based on place of birth, residence, or being a resident of urban or rural areas is impermissible in public employment.

3. Relief to Candidates Affected by the Unconstitutional Award of Bonus Marks:
In *Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan*, the Full Bench did not grant relief to petitioners as they could not secure a place in the merit list even without the bonus marks, and the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties. This decision was followed in *Kailash Chand Sharma*, leading to the dismissal of subsequent writ petitions seeking similar relief.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of prospective overruling in *Kailash Chand Sharma*, protecting appointments made before November 18, 1999, while allowing writ petitioners who approached the High Court before this date to be reconsidered for appointments without bonus marks. This doctrine aimed to balance competing claims and provide justice to affected candidates.

5. Validity of Appointments Made Before and After a Specific Cutoff Date:
Appointments made before November 18, 1999, were left untouched. However, candidates who filed writ petitions before this date were entitled to be reconsidered vis-a-vis those appointed on or after November 18, 1999, without the unconstitutional bonus marks. This cutoff date was crucial in determining the validity of appointments and relief granted.

6. Interpretation and Application of the Supreme Court's Directions in Previous Judgments:
The Supreme Court's directions in *Kailash Chand Sharma* were binding and led to the dismissal of writ petitions filed after November 18, 1999. The Court in *Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan* reaffirmed that only those who moved the High Court before the cutoff date were entitled to relief, rejecting claims for parity or similar treatment for later petitioners.

7. Doctrine of Res Judicata Versus Law of Precedent:
The Court distinguished between res judicata, which binds parties to a specific litigation, and the law of precedent, which applies universally within the jurisdiction. The decision in *Manmohan Sharma* emphasized that authoritative pronouncements must be respected to avoid uncertainty and speculative litigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that candidates who did not file writ petitions on or before November 17, 1999, were not entitled to appointment upon recalculation of marks excluding bonus marks. This direction does not apply to cases where the principle of res judicata applies. All other pending writ petitions and appeals should be decided based on the decisions in *Kailash Chand Sharma*, *Manmohan Sharma*, and the present matter, subject to justified and satisfactorily explained condonation of delay.

Disposition:
The appeals and all pending applications were disposed of in accordance with the terms outlined above.

← Previous Next →