2004 (10) TMI 585 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Haryana Civil Service Act 2002, except for revoking benefits.

VIRENDER SINGH HOODA AND ORS. Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination ... Whether Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 to the extent of its retrospective application valid? Issues Involved:1. Retrospective application of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002.2. Alleged usurpation of judicial power by the legislature.3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Retrospective Application of the Act:The Act was enforced on 27th March 2002, but Section 1(2) provided that it was deemed to have come into force from 29th August 1989. This retrospective application was challenged. The Act repealed certain executive instructions and circulars, and Section 4(1) restricted appointments to the number of posts advertised. Section 4(2) and 4(3) further clarified that no appointments beyond the advertised posts could be claimed based on merit or placement in a common/combined examination. The proviso to Section 4(3) stated that if any candidate had been appointed over and above the advertised posts, their services would be dispensed with, although they would not have to return any financial benefits received. The retrospective application was intended to address issues arising from judicial decisions in Virender S. Hooda and Sandeep Singh's cases, which had mandated appointments beyond advertised posts based on certain circulars.2. Alleged Usurpation of Judicial Power:The petitioners argued that the Act amounted to the legislature usurping judicial power to overrule the decisions in Virender S. Hooda and Sandeep Singh's cases. The court acknowledged that while the legislature cannot set aside a judicial decision, it can remove the basis of such decisions by enacting valid legislation. The court found that the Act did not usurp judicial power but instead removed the basis of the decisions by repealing the circulars that had been interpreted by the courts to mandate appointments beyond advertised posts. The court upheld the legislature's power to enact laws with retrospective effect, provided they do not contravene constitutional provisions.3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16:The petitioners contended that the Act violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The court examined whether the Act's provisions were arbitrary or discriminatory. It noted that the Act aimed to address the issue of long gaps between advertisements and appointments, which had led to claims for appointments beyond advertised posts. The court found that the Act's provisions were not violative of Articles 14 and 16, except for the proviso to Section 4(3), which was deemed harsh and arbitrary to the extent that it sought to dispense with the services of candidates already appointed based on judicial decisions. The court held that taking back benefits already granted in implementation of court decisions was impermissible.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002, except for the proviso to Section 4(3) to the extent it sought to dispense with the services of candidates already appointed. The court found that the Act did not usurp judicial power and was not violative of Articles 14 and 16, except for the limited aspect of taking back benefits already granted. The judgments of the High Court in favor of respondents Ajay Malik and Arvind Malhan were maintained, and similar treatment was extended to Jagdish Sharma and Mahavir Singh. The court set aside the judgments of the High Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8385 to 8393 of 2000.