1999 JTR(SC) 337
1999 AIR(SC) 1845 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 1447 ; 1999 2 CLR 153 ; 1999 82 FJR 90 ; 1999 82 FLR 90 ; 1999 2 JT 256 ; 1999 LIC 2084 ; 1999 2 LLJ 983 ; 1999 3 LLN 26 ; 1999 3 MLJ 27 ; 1999 2 Scale 122 ; 1999 3 SCC 362 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 433 ; 1999 SCC(L&S) 682 ; 1999 2 SCT 346 ; 1999 2 SCT 529 ; 1999 2 SLR 187 ; 1999 2 UPLBEC 1378 ; 1999 KHC 1066 ; 1999 1 KLT(Online) 934 ; 1999 3 Supreme 129
1999(3) Supreme 129
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Ernakulam in Kerala)
S. Saghir Ahmad & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Baburam etc. -Appellants
versus
C.C. Jacob & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10658-59 of 1996
With
(C.A. No. 10909/96)
Decided on 18-3-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : F. Anam, Dhruv Mehta, E.M.S. Anam, Advocates.
For the Union of India : Anoop Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, V.K. Verma, Ajit Pudussery, G. Prakash, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.14, Art.136
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include the Constitution of India, Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 136 (special leave to grant), Article 226 (power to issue writs), and Service Law. These provisions apply to this case as the dispute involves the constitutional validity of reservation policy in promotions, specifically whether reservation percentages are to be calculated on the cadre strength or on vacancies, and whether a prospective declaration of law can validate prior appointments made in the absence of clear law.
(B) Key legal principles include that reservation in promotion must be computed on the cadre strength and not on the number of vacancies; prospective declaration of law is an innovation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to validate prior actions taken in good faith; and subordinate authorities are bound by the declaration of law but cannot disturb prior decisions taken in good faith before such declaration.
Facts of the case:
In June 1993, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered promotion to four vacancies of Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) from the post of Preventive Officers, selecting the appellant for promotion to a reserved Scheduled Castes vacancy. The selection was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that reservation must be calculated on vacancies and directed recalculation. The appellants promotion was effected on 26.6.1994, prior to the tribunals order but after the DPC decision. The tribunal applied the ratio of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (decided on 10.2.1995) and allowed the appeal, setting aside the appointment. The appellant contended that the Sabharwal judgment was prospective only and could not apply to his promotion.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the prospectivity given in Sabharwals case was intended to preserve the status prevailing prior to the judgment and to validate actions taken in good faith before the declaration. Since both the DPC decision and the appointment were prior to the Sabharwal judgment, the tribunal erred in applying the ratio retrospectively. The court held that the declaration of law cannot disturb prior decisions taken in good faith and in the absence of clear law.
Issues:
Whether the principle of reservation in promotion must be applied to the cadre strength or to the vacancies that arise subsequently; and whether a prospective declaration of law can invalidate appointments made in good faith before the declaration.
Ratio Decidendi:
Reservation in promotion must be calculated on the cadre strength and not on vacancies; a prospective declaration of law is meant to validate prior actions taken in good faith before the declaration and cannot be used to disturb such prior decisions; subordinate authorities are bound by the declaration but prior decisions taken when law was unclear are protected.
Result:
The appeals are allowed; the orders of the tribunal setting aside the appointments and directing recalculation are set aside.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include the Constitution of India, Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 136 (special leave to grant), Article 226 (power to issue writs), and Service Law. These provisions apply to this case as the dispute involves the constitutional validity of reservation policy in promotions, specifically whether reservation percentages are to be calculated on the cadre strength or on vacancies, and whether a prospective declaration of law can validate prior appointments made in the absence of clear law.
(B) Key legal principles include that reservation in promotion must be computed on the cadre strength and not on the number of vacancies; prospective declaration of law is an innovation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to validate prior actions taken in good faith; and subordinate authorities are bound by the declaration of law but cannot disturb prior decisions taken in good faith before such declaration.
Facts of the case:
In June 1993, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered promotion to four vacancies of Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) from the post of Preventive Officers, selecting the appellant for promotion to a reserved Scheduled Castes vacancy. The selection was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that reservation must be calculated on vacancies and directed recalculation. The appellants promotion was effected on 26.6.1994, prior to the tribunals order but after the DPC decision. The tribunal applied the ratio of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (decided on 10.2.1995) and allowed the appeal, setting aside the appointment. The appellant contended that the Sabharwal judgment was prospective only and could not apply to his promotion.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the prospectivity given in Sabharwals case was intended to preserve the status prevailing prior to the judgment and to validate actions taken in good faith before the declaration. Since both the DPC decision and the appointment were prior to the Sabharwal judgment, the tribunal erred in applying the ratio retrospectively. The court held that the declaration of law cannot disturb prior decisions taken in good faith and in the absence of clear law.
Issues:
Whether the principle of reservation in promotion must be applied to the cadre strength or to the vacancies that arise subsequently; and whether a prospective declaration of law can invalidate appointments made in good faith before the declaration.
Ratio Decidendi:
Reservation in promotion must be calculated on the cadre strength and not on vacancies; a prospective declaration of law is meant to validate prior actions taken in good faith before the declaration and cannot be used to disturb such prior decisions; subordinate authorities are bound by the declaration but prior decisions taken when law was unclear are protected.
Result:
The appeals are allowed; the orders of the tribunal setting aside the appointments and directing recalculation are set aside.
Judgment
Santosh Hegde, J.-C.A. Nos. 10658-59/96 :
These appeals arise out of the order dated 22.9.1995 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short ‘the tribunal’) in O.A. Nos. 186/94, 961/95 and 1192/94. The applicants therein questioned the selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee and consequential promotion of the appellant to the post of Superintendent of Customs in a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes. The contention before the tribunal was that the percentage of reservation has always to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which formed the cadre strength and the said reservation is not to be made with reference to a vacancy.
2. Since the law in regard to the above stated position was nebulous, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.1 settled the said issue holding that such reservation is in relation to the number of posts comprising in the cadre and not in relation to vacancies. The judgment of the Constitution Bench was delivered on 10.2.1995. This Court in the said judgment after taking into consideration the fact that the law was not clear till that date, observed thus :
“We however, direct that the interpretation given by us to the working of the roster and our findings on this point shall be operative prospectively.” The question that arises for our consideration in this case is : was it open to the tribunal to apply the law laid down in R.K. Sabharwal’s case (supra) to the facts of the case in hand.
3. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this question are that in June, 1993, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘the DPC’) considered the suitability of candidates eligible for promotion to four vacancies which arose during 1993-94 in the cadre of Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) from the post of Preventive Officers in which proceedings of the DPC the appellant was chosen to be promoted against a reserved vacancy earmarked for the Scheduled Castes. The said decision of the DPC was challenged before the tribunal on 27.1.1994 wherein the applicants contended that they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the category of Superintendent of Customs to the concerned vacancy, treating these vacancies as unreserved. Consequently, they prayed that their case be considered for promotion on merits. During the pendency of the applications before the tribunal, the appellants herein came to be promoted on 26.6.1994 as against a reserved vacancy which arose on 1.6.1994. The tribunal on 22.9.95 following the judgment of this Court in the Sabharwal’s case (supra), allowed the applications and held that there had been an erroneous application of the principle of reservation resulting in appointment of Scheduled Caste candidates in excess of the quota earmarked for them. It directed the concerned respondents to recalculate the entitlements of different categories and take further action applying the quota rule to the cadre and not to the vacancies as they arose. It further directed that till the quota is correctly maintained, no appointment will be made from the groups which have exceeded the quota reserved for them. As noted above, the finding of the tribunal is based on the ratio of the judgment laid down by this Court in Sabharwal’s case (supra). The contention of the appellant in these appeals is that the judgment in Sabharwal’s case was made effective prospectively, hence, the same could not have been applied to the promotion of the appellant. This contention was negatived by the tribunal on the ground that the decision of the DPC in selecting the appellant does not amount to an appointment and in view of the fact that the appellant’s promotion was made subsequent to filing of the petition, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the prospectivity given to the Sabharwal’s judgment by this Court.
4. We are unable to agree with this view of the tribunal. It is to be noted that the prospectivity given to Sabharwal’s case was obviously on the ground that there was a doubt in regard to the position of law until the same was clarified by this Court in Sabharwal’s case. The decision of the DPC was taken in June, 1993; much prior to the judgment in Sabharwal’s case. It is only pursuant to the decision of the DPC, the appellant came to be promoted on 27.6.1994 which is also a date prior to the delivery of the judgment in Sabharwal’s case. In our opinion, the prospectivity was given to Sabharwal’s case only to see that status prevailing prior to the judgment in Sabharwal’s case should not be disturbed.
5. The prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a devise adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of law, it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law prior to its date of declaration are validated. This is done in the larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are legally bound to apply the declaration of law made by this Court are also duty-bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future only. In matters where decisions opposed to the said principle have been taken prior to such declaration of law cannot be interfered with on the basis of such declaration of law. In the instant case, both decisions of the DPC as well as the appointing authority being prior to the judgment in Sabharwal’s case, we are of the opinion that the tribunal was in error in applying this decision. For this reason, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed; setting aside the orders and directions made by the tribunal in OA Nos. 186/94, and 961/95.
C.A. No. 10909/1996 :
6. In view of our judgment in C.A. Nos. 10658-59/96, this appeal also succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(C.R.)
***********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Baburam etc. v. C.C. Jacob & Ors. etc., 1999(3) Supreme 129
00031