9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions which had already been granted would not be disturbed. The judgment of the Full Bench attained finality as special leave petition filed thereagainst was dismissed. Rules as amended by the State of Kerala on 01.07.1980 and 30.08.1984 were upheld. The doctrine of prospective over-ruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to the normal principle of law, was imported and applied for the first time in L.C. Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab[ 1967 (2) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT] and Anr. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors., v. B. Karunakar and Ors.[ 1993 (10) TMI 310 - SUPREME COURT] , the view was adopted. Prospective over-ruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to by this Court while superseding the law declared by it earlier. It is a device innovated to avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. In other words, actions taken contrary to the law declared prior to the date of declaration are validated in larger public interest. The law as declared applies to future cases. In service matters, this Court on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person qualified under Item 2(a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under Item 2(b) and vice versa. Provided that no senior diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder and provided that the benefit of turn under the ratio of 1 : 1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion the senior diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the arising vacancy. A further proviso was appended thereto by a Government order dated 30.08.1984 in term of SRO No. 1044 of 1984, which reads as follows: Provided further that the benefit of the ratio of 1 : 1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion of the senior diploma holder shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy. 4. Constitutionality of the said provision was challenged before the Kerala High Court, whereupon a Division Bench thereof in Daniel v. State of Kerala 1985 KLT 1057, declared the same to be ultra vires, stating: In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in (1974)ILLJ121SC , (1976)IILLJ115SC , 1983 KLT 987, 1983 KLT 878, 1981 (2) Kerala 527 and 1975 KLT 1, we have no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. (as the His Lordship then was) in Ravindran v. State of Kerala 1992 (1) KLT 524, took a different view, opining: In the present case the Government has filed a counter stating that after considering various aspects, the Government prescribed the necessary qualification for the various supervisory posts 'according to the requirement of duties and functions of the post'. It is also stated that special rules were made for the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. It is also stated that Government considered that seniors who are not diploma holders may be prejudiced by the rules as they stood in 1976, and that the ratio of 1 : 1 fixed for promotion between the certificate holders and diploma holders is quite reasonable and rational and hence valid. Having regard to the technical nature of the posts in the government presses we do not think that the ratio prescribed between diploma holders and certificate holders is in any way unreasonable. In view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand's case AIR1989SC307 , and also in view of the two judgments of the Division Bench in Balakrishnan's case and in Cheru's case O.P. No. 1851 of 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf has been placed on Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1994)ILLJ162SC , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [1995]2SCR35 , Union of India and Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ors. AIR1996SC448 , Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [1997]3SCR269 , Ajit Singh-II v. State of Punjab AIR1999SC3471 , Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (1999)IILLJ983SC , E.A. Sathyanesan v. V.K. Agnihotri and Ors. (2004)9SCC165 , M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR2007SC71 . It was furthermore submitted that the promotions were given to the appellants when the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in Daniel (supra) and Ravindran (supra) were in force and, thus, as the law was declared by the Full Bench only in the year 2005, the same was not applicable in their case. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, would, however, support the judgment. 10. For the views we propose to take, it is not necessary for us to consider all the decisions relied upon by Mr. Rajan. The legal position as regards the applicability of doctrine of prospective overruling is no longer res integra. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 142 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 57(5) of the Act. The contention is that since the provisions of that section give power to the Chancellor to terminate the services of a teacher only if he is satisfied that the appointment was not in accordance with the law at that time in force and since the law at that time in force, viz., on March 30, 1985 when the appellants were appointed, was the law as laid down in Bhakre's case which was decided on December 7, 1984, the termination of the appellants is beyond the powers of the Chancellor. The argument can only be described as naive. It is unnecessary to point out that when the court decides that the interpretation of a particular provision as given earlier was not legal, it in effect declares that the law as it stood from the beginning was as per its decision, and that it was never the law otherwise. This being the case, since the Full Bench and now this Court has taken the view that the interpretation placed on the provisions of law by the Division Bench in Bhakre's case was erroneous, it will have to be held that the appointments made by the University on March 30, 1985 pursuant to the law laid down in Bhakre's case were not according to law. Hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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. The impugned judgments of the High Court are, therefore, set, aside. 14. The effect of declaration of law, the rue of stare decisis and the consequences flowing from a departure from an earlier decision has been considered in great details by the House of Lords in National Westminster Bank plc v. Spectrum Plus Limited and Ors. (2005) UKHL 41 : 2005 (3) WLR 58, opining: 8. People generally conduct their affairs on the basis of what they understand the law to be. This 'retrospective' effect of a change in the law of this nature can have disruptive and seemingly unfair consequences. 'Prospective overruling', som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The English law in this respect is developing rapidly. Prospective rulings seemed anathema to Lord Wilberforce in Launchbury v. Morgans [1973] AC 127 and Lord Goff of Chieveley in Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349, 379. By the time of Regina v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. 2) [2001] 2 AC 19, Lord at p. 26 H considered that the effect of judicial rulings being prospective might in some situations be desirable and in no way unjust , though Lord Steyn at p. 28 B thought the point was a novel one . With some perspicacity Lord Hope of Craighead foresaw at p. 36 that the issue of retrospectivity is likely to assume an added importance when the Human Rights Act 1998 is brought into force . Lord Hobhouse at p.48 F would have none of it. The latest in this line of authority seems to be In re Spectrum Plus Ltd. (in liquidation) [2005] UKHL 41, [2005] 3 WLR 58 where the danger was acknowledged that prospective overruling would amount to judicial usurpation of the legislative function , per Lord Nicholls at para. 28 but nonetheless he noted that, especially in the human rights field, 'Never say never' was a wise judicial precept , (para. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
