Supreme Court Upholds Kerala HC Decision with Retrospective Effect, Impacting Previous Promotions.

The SC dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Full Bench's decision of the Kerala HC has a retrospective effect as it did not specify otherwise. The promotions granted under earlier conflicting judgments are impacted by this ruling. The SC reiterated that prospective overruling is within its jurisdiction and must be explicitly stated. No costs were ordered in the dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in service matters.
2. Constitutionality of the amended rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Services in Kerala.
3. Legal consequences of conflicting judgments by different benches of the Kerala High Court.
4. Retrospective effect of judicial decisions and the concept of prospective overruling.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling in Service Matters:
The primary issue in these appeals is the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in service matters. The appellants argued that the High Court erred by not considering that in service matters, the doctrine of prospective overruling would ordinarily apply. They relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support their contention, including *Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar*, *R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab*, and others. The Supreme Court clarified that the power of prospective overruling is vested in the Supreme Court and can be exercised in constitutional matters. However, High Courts, in their equity jurisdiction under Article 226, may grant limited relief without applying the doctrine of prospective overruling. The Court emphasized that the doctrine must be expressly stated to have a prospective effect.

2. Constitutionality of the Amended Rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Services:
The constitutionality of the amended rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Services in Kerala was challenged. The rules prescribed a promotion ratio of 1:1 between diploma-holders and certificate-holders. Initially, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in *Daniel v. State of Kerala* declared the rules ultra vires, stating that the classification based on microscopic distinctions could not be allowed. However, another Division Bench in *Ravindran v. State of Kerala* upheld the rules, stating that the ratio prescribed was reasonable and rational. The conflict was eventually referred to a Full Bench, which upheld the amended rules, stating that they were not discriminatory and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the Full Bench's decision had attained finality as a special leave petition against it was dismissed.

3. Legal Consequences of Conflicting Judgments by Different Benches of the Kerala High Court:
The conflicting judgments by different benches of the Kerala High Court created a state of flux in the law. While one Division Bench applied the ratio laid down in *Daniel's* case, another refused to follow it. The Full Bench eventually overruled *Daniel's* decision and upheld the views in *Ravindran's* case. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Full Bench did not state that the promotions already granted would not be disturbed. The Court emphasized that the law declared by a court ordinarily affects the rights of the parties and has a retrospective effect unless expressly stated otherwise.

4. Retrospective Effect of Judicial Decisions and the Concept of Prospective Overruling:
The Supreme Court elaborated on the retrospective effect of judicial decisions and the concept of prospective overruling. It cited several cases, including *Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University*, which held that when a court declares a law, it is assumed to be the law from inception. The Court also referred to *M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka*, which stated that the doctrine of prospective overruling is an exception to the normal principle of law and is used to avoid reopening settled issues and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The Court noted that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court did not specify that its decision would have a prospective effect, and thus, the law declared would have a retrospective effect. The subsequent Division Bench did not have the jurisdiction to declare the law to have a prospective operation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that the law declared by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court would have a retrospective effect as it did not specify otherwise. The promotions granted under the earlier conflicting judgments would be affected by the Full Bench's decision. The Court reiterated that the power of prospective overruling is vested in the Supreme Court and must be expressly stated to have a prospective effect. There was no order as to costs in the dismissal of the appeals.

---