Retrospective validation in public employment can remove a judgment's basis, but cannot arbitrarily withdraw already granted appointments.

Retrospective validation can cure the legal basis of earlier recruitment decisions without usurping judicial power, so long as the legislature acts within competence and constitutional limits. The Haryana Civil Service combined examination law was described as replacing the earlier circular regime with a statutory scheme restricting appointments to advertised vacancies, and it was treated as consistent with Articles 14 and 16 because candidates have no enforceable right beyond advertised posts. However, the proviso to Section 4(3) was held invalid to the limited extent that it authorised withdrawal of appointments already made pursuant to earlier judicial directions, because accrued benefits could not be arbitrarily taken back.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective operation of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 amounted to usurpation of judicial power or merely removed the of earlier decisions; (ii) whether the Act was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and (iii) whether the proviso to Section 4(3), to the extent it withdrew appointments already made, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective operation of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 amounted to usurpation of judicial power or merely removed the basis of earlier decisions.

Analysis: The Act repealed the circulars on which the earlier decisions rested and substituted a statutory regime that confined appointment to advertised posts. A legislature cannot reverse a judicial decision by bare declaration, but it may enact a valid retrospective law that changes the legal foundation on which the decision was based. The power to validate past action includes the power to remove the defect or basis that led to the judicial result, provided the law remains within legislative competence and constitutional limits.

Conclusion: The Act did not usurp judicial power and, except for the limited invalidity noticed below, validly removed the basis of the earlier decisions.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The legal scheme created by the Act ensured that candidates acquire no enforceable right to posts beyond those advertised, and that subsequent vacancies must be filled through a fresh recruitment process open to later eligible candidates. That approach was held consistent with equality in public employment and with the principle that appointments cannot ordinarily exceed the advertised vacancies. A retrospective law is not unconstitutional merely because it affects accrued expectations, so long as it is not arbitrary, excessive, or otherwise contrary to fundamental rights.

Conclusion: The Act was held not to violate Articles 14 and 16, except to the limited extent that is separately dealt with in Issue (iii).

Issue (iii): Whether the proviso to Section 4(3), to the extent it withdrew appointments already made, was valid.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between a law that removes the basis of a judgment and a law that takes back benefits already granted in implementation of that judgment. To the extent the proviso authorized dispensing with services of persons who had already been appointed pursuant to earlier judicial directions, it was found harsh, excessive, and arbitrary. Such accrued benefits could not be retrospectively withdrawn in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 4(3) was invalid to the limited extent that it authorised withdrawal of appointments already made; in all other respects the Act was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The legislative scheme was substantially sustained, the earlier judicial basis was treated as validly removed, and only the retrospective withdrawal of appointments already granted was struck down as unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may retrospectively alter the legal foundation of an earlier judicial decision and thereby neutralise its effect, but it cannot, under the guise of validation, arbitrarily take back benefits already lawfully conferred in implementation of that decision.

---