2003 (9) TMI 76 - SC - Income Tax

Challenging the selection of respondent No. 4 and placing respondent No. 5 in the waiting list for the two posts of Manager (Finance and Accounts) - Held that - As there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error by holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma s Case No. II 1997 (3) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT . All the more so when the subsequent judgment is by way of review of the first judgment in which case there are no judgments at all and the subsequent judgment rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased by countenancing the review applications. It is not in dispute that subsequently the appellant has also been appointed on November 9, 2002. Though it was permissible for this court to set aside the appointments of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5, on the peculiar facts of this case, we consider it to be not called for and the rights of parties instead could be adjusted by working out equities, in the interests of substantial justice by adopting a different course. The appellant shall rank senior to respondent No. 4 by treating his appointment to be with effect from the date of selection of respondent No. 4. This shall be only for the purpose of fixing the seniority and continuity of service and not for entitlement to any salary or other financial benefits. As respondent No. 5 was only in the waiting list, and it is stated that he has been subsequently appointed, he will also rank below the appellant and respondent No. 4. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility criteria for job application based on educational qualifications and timing.
2. Interpretation of previous court judgments regarding qualification requirements for job applications.
3. Application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in judicial decisions.
4. Molding reliefs in cases where appointments have been made based on incorrect interpretations.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of eligibility criteria for job applications based on educational qualifications and timing. The case involved the selection process for two Manager positions by a corporation in Karnataka. The advertisement specified the necessary qualifications and the deadline for applications. Despite not meeting the qualifications on the application deadline, one of the respondents acquired the required qualification before the written test and interview. The court examined whether the subsequent acquisition of qualifications should be considered for eligibility.

2. The judgment discussed the interpretation of previous court judgments regarding qualification requirements for job applications. Reference was made to a previous case where it was held that if an applicant acquires the necessary qualification by the time of the interview, it is sufficient. The court analyzed the relevance of this precedent in the current case where the respondent acquired the qualification after the application deadline but before the selection process.

3. The application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in judicial decisions was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The court explained that the law declared by the Supreme Court is presumed to be the law at all times unless indicated otherwise. The doctrine of prospective overruling, which aims to prevent the reopening of settled issues and avoid uncertainty, was discussed. The court emphasized that the doctrine applies to future cases and should be explicitly indicated in a decision.

4. The judgment addressed the issue of molding reliefs in cases where appointments were made based on incorrect interpretations. Instead of setting aside the appointments of the respondents, the court decided to adjust the rights of the parties by working out equities in the interests of substantial justice. The court ordered that the appellant would rank senior to the respondent who was initially selected, only for the purpose of seniority and continuity of service, without affecting financial benefits. The judgment provided a detailed and equitable solution to the issue at hand.