2003 (9) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT

Challenging the selection of respondent No. 4 and placing respondent No. 5 in the waiting list for the two posts of Manager (Finance and Accounts) - Held that:- As there shall be no prospective overruling, 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 overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of 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 [1997 (3) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT]. 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.

It is not in dispute that subsequently the appellant has also been appointed on November 9, 2002. Though it was permissible for this court to set aside the appointments of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5, on the peculiar facts of this case, we consider it to be not called for and the rights of parties instead could be adjusted by working out equities, in the interests of substantial justice by adopting a different course. The appellant shall rank senior to respondent No. 4 by treating his appointment to be with effect from the date of selection of respondent No. 4. This shall be only for the purpose of fixing the seniority and continuity of service and not for entitlement to any salary or other financial benefits. As respondent No. 5 was only in the waiting list, and it is stated that he has been subsequently appointed, he will also rank below the appellant and respondent No. 4. The appeals are accordingly allowed.