2011 (4) TMI 1464 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, Notification dated 28.5.2008 declared illegal. Costs awarded. Non-joinder issue.

J.S. Yadav Versus State of U.P. & Anr.

J.S. Yadav Versus State of U.P. & Anr. - 2011 (5) SCR 460, 2011 (6) SCC 570, 2011 (5) JT 186, 2011 (4) SCALE 733 Issues Involved:1. Retrospective application of the Amendment Act 2006.2. Eligibility of the appellant under the amended provisions.3. Validity of the Notification dated 28.5.2008.4. Non-joinder of necessary parties.5. Relief and costs awarded.Detailed Analysis:1. Retrospective Application of the Amendment Act 2006:The appellant argued that the Amendment Act 2006 could not be applied retrospectively to curtail his tenure as he was appointed before the amendment. The Court emphasized that the Amendment Act 2006 did not expressly or by necessary implication suggest retrospective application. The principle that 'a statute is presumed to be prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation' was upheld. The Court concluded that the amendment would apply prospectively, and the appellant's rights were protected under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.2. Eligibility of the Appellant Under the Amended Provisions:The appellant contended that his experience as an Additional District Judge should be considered equivalent to that of a District Judge under the Amendment Act 2006. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the posts of District Judge and Additional District Judge are neither inter-changeable nor inter-transferable, despite being part of a single cadre. The Court held that the legislative intent was clear in prescribing a minimum of seven years' experience as a District Judge, and this could not be interpreted to include experience as an Additional District Judge.3. Validity of the Notification Dated 28.5.2008:The Court found that the Notification declaring the appellant ceased to hold office was in violation of Section 26 of the Act 1993, which protected the terms and conditions of service of members after their appointment. The appellant was eligible and competent under the Act 1993 and had worked for about two years, including after the commencement of the Amendment Act 2006. Therefore, the Notification was deemed patently illegal.4. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:The respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties, as the appellant did not implead the newly appointed members. The Court noted that no order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting them, and such an order is liable to be ignored. However, since the appellant sought only a declaration that he had been unlawfully discontinued, and not to dislodge the newly appointed members, the Court provided the declaration without further relief.5. Relief and Costs Awarded:The Court declared the Notification dated 28.5.2008 illegal but did not grant any relief that would affect the newly appointed members. The appellant was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 1 lakh, to be paid by the respondents within two months.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed to the extent that the Notification dated 28.5.2008 was declared illegal. The appellant was awarded costs, but no further relief was granted due to the non-joinder of necessary parties and the appellant's own submissions before the High Court.