IMPORTANT POINT
The power of prospective overruling must be exercised in the clearest possible term and the law declared by a court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW—Prospective Overruling—Applicability of the doctrine—Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Services—Mode of appointment and qualifications as prescribed in the rules—By a Government order dated 1-7-1980, the rule framed in terms of SRO No. 1030 of 1976 was amended prescribing a ratio of 1:1 for the purpose of promotion between diploma holders and certificate-holders—Constitutionality of the said provision was challenged—Division Bench of the High Court in Daniel v. State, 1985 KLT 1057, declared the provision as ultra vires—However, Full Bench held that the amended special rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Services Rules were not suffering from any infirmity—It was held that fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma holders and certificate holders needs no interference—Decision in Daniel was expressly overruled—SLP filed thereagainst was dismissed—Full Bench having not said that the law declared by it would have a prospective operation only—Appellants were issued notices as to why they shall not be reverted from the post of Assistant Superintendent pursuant to or in furtherance of the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court—Promotions were given to appellants when the law laid down by the High Court in Daniel and Ravindran 1992(1) KLT 524 (conflicting decisions) were in force—Whether law declared by the Full Bench in year 2005 will have a retrospective effect, therefore applicable in appellant’s case—(Yes).
       Held : The law was in a state of flux in the sense that as far back as in the year 1992, the two Division Benches took contrary views; while one applied the ratio laid down in Daniel’s (supra), another refused to follow the same. (Para 13)
       The Full Bench of the High Court indisputably did not say that the promotions 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. (Para 15)
       If the said Rules ultimately were held to be constitutional, it was required to be given effect to. The law declared by a court is ordinarily affects the rights of the parties. A court of law having regard to the nature of adversarial system of our justice delivery system exercises adjudicatory role. Legal consequences are determined in respect of the matters which had taken place in the past.(Para 16)
       It may be true that when the doctrine of stare decisis is not adhered to, a change in the law may adversely affect the interest of the citizens. The doctrine of prospective overruling although is applied to overcome such a situation, but then it must be stated expressly. The power must be exercised in the clearest possible term. The decisions of this Court are clear pointer thereto.(Para 17)
       In service matters, this Court on a number of occasions have passed orders on equitable consideration. But the same would not mean that whenever a law is declared, it will have an effect only because it has taken a different view from the earlier one. In those cases it is categorically stated that it would have prospective operation.(Para 22)
       Moreover, the judgment of the Full Bench has attained finality. The special leave petition has been dismissed. The subsequent Division Bench, therefore, could not have said as to whether the law declared by the Full Bench would have a prospective operation or not. The law declared by a court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. The Full Bench having not said so, the subsequent Division Bench did not have the jurisdiction in that behalf.(Para 26)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 32, 142 and 226—Doctrine of Prospective Overruling—Applicability—Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 142 may declare a law to have a prospective effect—It must be stated expressly—Power of prospective overruling must be exercised in the clearest possible term—Law declared by a Court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.
       Held : 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 the Constitution of India may declare a law to have a prospective effect. The Division Bench of the High Court may be correct in opining that having regard to the decision of this Court in L.C. Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [AIR 1967 SC 1643) the power of overruling is vested only in this Court and that too in constitutional matters, but the High Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even without applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, indisputably may grant a limited relief in exercise of their equity jurisdiction. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in service matters is in question in these appeals which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.03.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby and whereunder on interpretation of a Full Bench decision in Subaida Beevi v. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLT 426] it was held to have no prospective operation.

3. Appellants were working in the Government Presses, Kerala. The Government of Kerala framed rules for the employees of Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Services to which cadre the appellants belonged. It consisted of several branches. Admittedly, there are several categories and sub-categories of employees working therein. The mode of appointment as also the qualifications therefor has been prescribed in the rules. By reason of a Government order dated 01.07.1980, the rule framed in terms of SRO No. 1030 of 1976 was amended prescribing a ratio of 1 : 1 for the purpose of promotion between diploma-holders and certificate-holders by adding a Note thereto, which reads as under :

“Note : Promotion of persons qualified under Item 2(a) and 2(b) above shall be made in the ratio 1 : 1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under Item 2(a). If no 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.”

4. 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.”

5. 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 A.I.R. 1974 SC 1, AIR 1974 SC 1631, 1983 KLT 987, 1983 KLT 878, 1981 (2) Kerala 527 and 1975 KLT 1, we have no doubt at all that this classification on microscopic distinction could not be allowed. We would therefore strike down the notes to Branch Nos. 1 and 9 to Ex. P-2”

6. The correctness of the said decision was questioned before another Division Bench of the said Court in Writ Appeal No.149 of 1990. By a judgment dated 14.01.1992, Paripoornan, J. (as His Lordship then was), held :

“Having heard counsel at length, we are of the view, that since the service involved in the present cases is the same as the one which came up for consideration in Daniel’s case (1985 KLT 1057) and the Rules are also the same, the judgments appealed against, do not require interference. It is agreed that the Bench decision in Daniel’s case (1985 KLT 1057) considered the identical rules in the same service (Government Presses Subordinate Service), which in issue in these two O.Ps. as well. Even so, learned Government Pleader, Mr. V.C. James, very forcefully submitted that the Bench decision in Daniel’s case (1985 KLT 1057) is not good law, or, at any rate, requires reconsideration in view of the later Bench decision of this Court in Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 66). We are unable to accept this plea for more reasons than one. The service rules, which came up for consideration in the later decision, Balakrishnan’s case (1990 (1) KLT 66) is “Engineering Service (Radio and Electrical Branches) Rules, 1967”. The import and impact in evaluating and upholding the reason for fixing the ratio i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 90

IMPORTANT POINTThe power of prospective overruling must be exercised in the clearest possible term and the law declared by a court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.

Cases Referred (15)

IMPORTANT POINT
The power of prospective overruling must be exercised in the clearest possible term and the law declared by a court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.