IMPORTANT POINT
Decision of Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by Supreme Court is law from inception.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW-Post of Manager (Finance and Accounts)-Respondent No. 4 selected for post was not qualified on date of submission of application but was permitted to appear for test-On date of interview he was eligible-Writ challenging selection of respondent was dismissed holding that respondent was ineligible as on date of employment, but in public interest selection was to be maintained when applicant had acquired qualification by the time of interview-Ashok Kumar Sharma s case decided in 1993 was relied on the point-View taken in Ashok Kumar s case was over-ruled in Ashok Kumar Sharma s case decided in 1997-Doctrine of prospective over-ruling-High Court was in error by holding that judgment which operated on date of selection was operative and not the review judgment decided in 1997-Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside-Relief however moulded on principles of equity, as appellant had also been appointed in 2002. (Paras 7 to 9)
       (ii) Prospective Over-ruling-Doctrine of-Decision of Supreme Court enunciating law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency as what is enunciated is law from inception.
       Held : Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. 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 and Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 1643). In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (1993 (4) SCC 727) 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 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. (See Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 201, Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (1999) 3 SCC 362). It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective over-ruling, 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 over-ruling. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals have common factual matrix, and legal panorama and, therefore, are dealt with by this common judgment.

3. Factual backdrop in a nutshell is as follows:

Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ) invited applications for recruitment to two posts of Manager (Finance and Accounts) by advertisement dated 18.7.1995. The advertisement inviting applications for the two posts of Manager (Finance and Accounts), one post for general and one post of scheduled caste, prescribed the requisite educational qualification. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the age and other qualifications were to be reckoned as of 31.7.1995. It was also indicated that the applications in the prescribed format with complete information should reach the prescribed authority before 29th July, 1995 and incomplete applications and applications without necessary enclosures were to be rejected.

4. Appellant and respondents 4 and 5 were applicants in response to the advertisement. Though respondent No.4 was not qualified on the last date of submission of application, he was permitted to attend and appear for the written test. However, on the date of interview he was eligible. The written test was conducted on 1.10.1995 and the viva vice was conducted on 25.11.1995. Similar was stated to be the position vis-a-vis respondent No.5. When respondent No.4 was selected, appellant challenged his selection to be not in accordance with law. It is to be noted that waiting list is prepared and respondent No.5 was placed in the waiting list.

5. A writ application was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore challenging the selection of respondent No.4 and placing respondent No.5 in the waiting list. Though, learned Single Judge of the High Court held that respondent No.4 was ineligible as on the date of employment, he held that in public interest the selection was to be maintained.

6. A reference was made to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. Chander Shekher and Anr. (1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611) (described hereinafter as Ashok Kumar Sharma - case No.I) where it was held that if the applicant had acquired qualification by the time of interview that is sufficient.

7. A writ appeal was filed before the Division Bench. The view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench. A review application was filed inter alia taking the stand that the view in Ashok Kumar Sharma s case No. I has been later on over-ruled in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1997 (4) SCC 18) (described hereinafter as Ashok Kumar Sharma - case No.II). Therefore, a review of the judgment of the Division Bench was necessary. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that though admittedly on 18.7.1995 i.e. on the date of advertisement the respondent No.4 was not qualified to make an application, yet few dates and facts are relevant. He had appeared for the M.B.A. examination in April 1995 and the results were declared on 4.9.1995. The written examination was held on 1.10.1995 and viva voce was conducted on 25.11.1995. At least by the time the written examination and the viva voce tests were held, he had acquired the requisite qualification. Judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma s case No. I was delivered on 18.12.1992 and decision in the review petition in the said case was rendered on 10.3.1997. The appointment of respondent No.4 was made when the earlier decision of Ashok Kumar Sharma s case No.I held the field. It was, therefore, held that on the date of selection, the first judgment held the field; and, therefore, by applying logic of that decision the selection of respondent No.4 cannot be questioned.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is erroneous as the law declared by this Court is presumed to be the law at all times. Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating a principle of law is a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 842

IMPORTANT POINTDecision of Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by Supreme Court is law from inception.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Decision of Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by Supreme Court is law from inception.