Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (1) TMI 624 - SC - Indian LawsApplication of the doctrine of prospective overruling in service matters - Government of Kerala framed rules for the employees of Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Services - Government order, rule framed amended prescribing a ratio of 1 : 1 for the purpose of promotion between diploma-holders and certificate- holders - whether the law declared by the Full Bench would have a prospective operation or not - HELD THAT:- The conflict in the decisions was noticed and eventually referred to a Full Bench in the Subaida Beevi [2004 (11) TMI 623 - KERALA HIGH COURT] by another Division Bench of the said Court. By a judgment dated 04.11.2004, the Full Bench held that the amended special rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Services Rules were not suffering from any infirmity and fixation of ratio of 1 : 1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma-holders and certificate-holders needs no interference. 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. 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[1967 (2) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT] and Anr. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors., v. B. Karunakar and Ors.[1993 (10) TMI 310 - SUPREME COURT], 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 the 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. 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. 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. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals, which are dismissed accordingly.
|