9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge or the Division Bench has become final since it was not challenged before the Division Bench or before this Court. Application disposed off. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3873 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4491 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4562 OF 2012) - - - Dated:- 30-4-2019 - L. NAGESWARA RAO AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ. For Appearing Parties: Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. (AAG), Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv., Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda Mishra, K.L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Yunus Malik, Anish Maheshwari, Chitra Chaudhary, Khushali, Prashant Chaudhary, Mukul Kumar, Jayant Bhatt, Jyoti Sharma and Ruchi Kohli, Advs. JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4562 of 2012. 2. Predicament of candidates consequent to conflicting opinions in different decisions of the High Court on true and correct interpretation of principle of prospective overruling as directed in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562 is the cause of this agonising and festering litigation since 1999. This scarecrow of a litigation, to use the words of Charles Dickens, in course of time, [has] beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) and the batch of writ petitions were disposed of. 5. After the decision of the Full Bench in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra), a large number of writ petitions including one by Naval Kishore were filed before the Rajasthan High Court. Some of them, notwithstanding the operative directions given by the Full Bench in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra), were disposed of with a direction to the authorities to prepare and draw up a fresh merit list of candidates appointed on or after October 21, 1999 without the bonus marks. For convenience we would refer to these cases as Naval Kishore's case. Naval Kishore's case (supra) was decided on 30th July, 2002. 6. The decision of the Full Bench in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) and some of the judgments directing preparation of fresh merit list without bonus marks (but not in all cases where such directions were issued) became subject matter of challenge in Special Leave Petitions which were granted and decided vide the judgment reported as Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) referred to by us in paragraph 2 above. Affirming the findings of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, this Court conclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18-11-1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17-11-1999 need not be reopened and re-considered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this Court Under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court Under Article 226 at an earlier point of time. 7. Thus, notwithstanding the ratio, appointments made before November 18, 1999 were left untouched and saved. The writ Petitioners who had moved the High Court before November 18, 1999 were entitled to be considered afresh vis-a-vis candidates appointed on or after November 18, 1999 or with those in the select list without giving such appointed/selected candidates benefit of the bonus marks which had been declared to be unconstitutional. Only such writ Petitioners, if found to be higher in the order of merit than those appointed after November 18, 1999 or on select list, were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouched, the writ-Petitioners who had moved the High Court had to be considered afresh vis-a-vis candidates appointed on or after 18th November, 1999 or those in the select list without giving to such appointed/selected candidates the benefit of bonus marks under the circular, and (c) that upon such consideration of the writ-Petitioners if they are found to be superior in merit than those appointed after 18th November, 1999 they shall be offered appointments, if necessary, by removing the latter. 17. It was strenuously contended by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the expression the Appellants who moved the High Court appearing in para 46 (supra) was wide enough and actually covered not only such of the writ-Petitioners as had approached the High Court in the two batch of cases decided by this Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) but also all such candidates as may have filed writ petitions at any time after 18th November, 1999 including those who filed such petition after 30th July, 2002 when this Court decided the appeals in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) and connected matters. 18. We find it difficult to accept that contention. There is nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er November 18, 1999 and before July 30, 2002 and Category II comprising of writ petitions which were filed after July 30, 2002. The date July 30, 2002 being the date of decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Naval Kishore's case (supra). Rejecting the arguments raised on behalf of the two Categories, the Bench observed that in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) this Court had recognized the need to balance competing claims by invoking doctrine of prospective overruling, thereby, protecting appointments made on or before November 17, 1999 and confining relief only to the writ Petitioners who had moved the High Court before November 18, 1999. Further, the directions given in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) were a binding precedent Under Article 141 of the Constitution. With regard to the argument for grant of benefit on the principle of parity, i.e. similar benefits, as notwithstanding the judgment in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) some of the candidates were appointed on redrawing the merit list after exclusion of bonus marks, the Bench comprehensively and squarely rejected the submission as being contrary to the dictum and binding directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the previous decision was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body. (See Makhija Construction and Engineering Private Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 304). Learned Counsel for the Appellants had drawn our attention to several decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in which reliefs have been granted to the writ Petitioners who had not filed a writ petition before the cut-off date of November 18, 1999 fixed by this Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra). Some of these decisions were made after the decision of Manmohan Sharma's case (supra) on April 01, 2014. This should have been avoided as authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Court must be respected and followed as any departure therefrom would cause uncertainty, unnecessary and speculative litigation as has been held in strong words in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450 and Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association and Ors. v. Bihar Education Service Association and Ors. (2012) 13 SCC 33 Consequently, we find that a number of impl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
