IMPORTANT POINT
A court interpreting a judgment can neither enlarge its scope not modify it.

Headnote:(a) Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of judgment – Court restricting the relief to petitioners of the writ petition out of which the appeal arose – Has to be construed strictly – Relief cannot be extended to writ petitions filed around the time or thereafter. (Para 19)
       (2002) 6 SCC 562; (2009) 2 SCC 706 – Relied upon
       (1999) 2 Raj LR 692 – Referred
       (b) Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of judgment – Interpretation is not review – Court, while interpreting a judgment cannot enlarge its scope nor modify it. (Para 20)
       (c) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Writ petitions Kailash Sharma, Naval Kishore and Danveer Singh heard and allowed by Single Bench – State appealing against Kailash Sharma and Naval Kishore which ultimately reached Supreme Court – Supreme Court in Kailash Sharma giving relief to the writ petitioners – Implying thereby the batch cases – Merely because State did not chose to challenge Danveer Singh LPA, will not deprive the petitioners therein of the relief granted by Supreme Court in Kailash Sharma. (Para 25)
       (d) Service Law – Recruitment – Candidates securing appointment on basis of misrepresentation of facts and fraudulently – Working for a decade – Criminal cases instituted – Not entitled to regularization – Subject to outcome of the criminal cases, one time age relaxation granted for next selection process. (Para 27)
       Facts of the case:
       State of Rajasthan had provided that candidates for teachers in Panchayats etc will get 10 marks as bonus on grounds of domicile. Accordingly candidates from other districts were disqualified.
       The matter ultimately reached Supreme Court and the Court decided that although the condition of domicile was unconstitutional, the relief shall be restricted to the writ petitioners.
       This order was and misinterpreted many unqualified persons were appointed. Such persons were identified and terminated.
       The present case has been filed challenging these termination orders.
       Finding of the Court:
       Kailash Sharma does not cover writ petitions filed thereafter. However petitioners of
       Danveer Singh are entitled to the relief granted in Kailsah Sharma.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Thakur, J.:- Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The fate of these appeals by special leave, turn on a true and correct understanding of an order passed by this Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562. This Court was, in that case examining whether award of bonus marks to candidates seeking appointment as primary school teachers under Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan based on the domicile of the candidates was legally permissible. A similar question was earlier examined and answered in the negative by a Full Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan (1999) 2 Raj LR 692 [W.P. (C) No.1917 of 1995], which arose out of selection of Grade II and III teachers borne in the State cadre under the administrative control of the State Government. The High Court had in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) held that although award of bonus marks was not constitutionally valid, no relief could be given to the writ- petitioners in that case as they did not stand a chance even if award of bonus marks to the successful candidate was disregarded and inter se merit of the candidates determined without taking such marks into consideration. The operative portion of the order passed in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) is as under:

“Instead of sending the matter to the appropriate Bench, we think it proper to dispose of this petition with a direction that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they could not succeed to get the place in the merit list even by getting 10 bonus marks being residents of urban area, for which they are not certainly entitled. More so, the petitioners have not impleaded any person from the select list, not even the last selected candidate. Thus, no relief can be granted to them in spite of the fact that the appointments made in conformity with the impugned circular have not been in consonance with law. However, we clarify that any appointment made earlier shall not be affected by this judgment and it would have prospective application.”

4. When selection process for filling up posts of primary school teachers in six different districts in the State of Rajasthan commenced in the year 1998-99, award of bonus marks based on the domicile of the candidates once again came under challenge before the High Court. The immediate provocation for the challenge was provided by a Circular dated 10th June, 1998 issued by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj which prescribed the procedure to be followed for making selections and appointments against the available vacancies including the method for determination of merit based on educational qualifications of the candidates and award of bonus marks depending upon whether the candidates were domiciled in Rajasthan and residents of an urban or rural area of the State. The circular said:

“This year, determination of merit has been amended and determination of merit will be done as follows:

Sl. No.	Qualification	Weightage
1.	Secondary Examination	50%
2.	Senior Secondary Examination	20%
3.	STC/Bed	30%

II. Fixation of bonus marks for domiciles

Sl. No.	Qualification
Domiciles of Rajasthan	10 marks
Resident of district	10 marks
Resident of rural area of district	5 marks

5. Some of the candidates who hailed from outside the districts hence not eligible for the award of bonus marks filed writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the circular in so far as the same provided for the award of bonus marks. Those petitions when referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, culminated in the decision of the High Court in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case (supra) in which the High Court held that the question of constitutional validity of the bonus marks was no longer res integra in vie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 257

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAT.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.Manmohan Sharma – AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan & Ors. – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4294 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27829 of 2012) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4295 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28259 of 2012)Decided On : 01-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINTA court interpreting a judgment can neither enlarge its scope not modify it.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
A court interpreting a judgment can neither enlarge its scope not modify it.