TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king therein The mode of appointment as also the qualifications therefore has been prescribed in the rules. By reason of a Government order dated 01.07.1980, the rule framed in terms of SRO No. 1030 of 1976 was amended prescribing a ratio of 1 : 1 for the purpose of promotion between diploma-holders and certificate- holders by adding a Note thereto, which reads as under: Note : Promotion of persons qualified under Item 2(a) and 2(b) above shall be made in the ratio 1 : 1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under Item 2(a). If no person qualified under Item 2(a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under Item 2(b) and vice versa. Provided that no senior diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder and provided that the benefit of turn under the ratio of 1 : 1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion the senior diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the arising vacancy. A further proviso was appended thereto by a Government order dated 30.08.1984 in term of SRO No. 1044 of 1984, which reads as follows: Provided further that the benefit of the ratio of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered to be one rendered per incuriam. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the ratio of the earlier bench decision in Danil's case 1985 KLT 1057 should govern the fate of the present two Original Petitions. That is what has been done by the two learned Judge of this Court. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is called for in these writ appeals. The judgments appealed against are confirmed. The writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. It is, however, not in dispute that Jagannadha Rao, J. (as the His Lordship then was) in Ravindran v. State of Kerala 1992 (1) KLT 524, took a different view, opining: In the present case the Government has filed a counter stating that after considering various aspects, the Government prescribed the necessary qualification for the various supervisory posts 'according to the requirement of duties and functions of the post'. It is also stated that special rules were made for the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. It is also stated that Government considered that seniors who are not diploma holders may be prejudiced by the rules as they stood in 1976, and that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order, the judgment would be implemented, the contempt petitions are closed recording the undertaking that the judgment will be implemented within three months from today. With the above observations, all the writ petitions are dismissed and the contempt court petitions are closed. 9. Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in service matters ordinarily doctrine of prospective overruling would apply. Reliance in his behalf has been placed on Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1994)ILLJ162SC , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [1995]2SCR35 , Union of India and Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ors. AIR1996SC448 , Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [1997]3SCR269 , Ajit Singh-II v. State of Punjab AIR1999SC3471 , Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (1999)IILLJ983SC , E.A. Sathyanesan v. V.K. Agnihotri and Ors. (2004)9SCC165 , M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR2007SC71 . It was furthermore submitted that the promotions were given to the appellants when the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in Daniel (supra) and Rav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhered to, a change in the law may adversely affect the interest of the citizens. The doctrine of prospective overruling although is applied to overcome such a situation, but then it must be stated expressly. The power must be exercised in the clearest possible term. The decisions of this Court are clear pointer thereto. 12. As would be noticed by us hereafter in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and Ors. (1991)ILLJ574SC , this Court held: The second contention need not detain us long. It is based primarily on the provisions of Section 57(5) of the Act. The contention is that since the provisions of that section give power to the Chancellor to terminate the services of a teacher only if he is satisfied that the appointment "was not in accordance with the law at that time in force" and since the law at that time in force, viz., on March 30, 1985 when the appellants were appointed, was the law as laid down in Bhakre's case which was decided on December 7, 1984, the termination of the appellants is beyond the powers of the Chancellor. The argument can only be described as naive. It is unnecessary to point out that when the court decides that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective over-ruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective over-ruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error by holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma's case No. II. All the more so when the subsequent judgment is by way of Review of the first judgment in which case there are no judgments at all and the subsequent judgment rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased by countenancing the review applications. The impugned judgments of the High Court are, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pportunity to introduce new legislation: Banco Popolare di Cremona v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona (Case C-475/03, 17 March 2005), paras 72-88. [See also Lord Rodger of Earsferry - 'A Time for Everything under the Law : Some Reflections on Retrospectivity' (2005) 121 LQR 55. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead speaking for the House of Lords clearly held that the power to apply prospective overruling is available to the House of Lords also. 15. In Queen (on the Application of Ernest Leslie Wright) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) EWCA Civ. 67, it was observed: 42. The English law in this respect is developing rapidly. Prospective rulings seemed anathema to Lord Wilberforce in Launchbury v. Morgans [1973] AC 127 and Lord Goff of Chieveley in Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349, 379. By the time of Regina v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. 2) [2001] 2 AC 19, Lord at p. 26 H considered that the effect of judicial rulings being prospective might in some situations be "desirable and in no way unjust", though Lord Steyn at p. 28 B thought the point was a "novel one". With some perspicacity Lord Hope of Craighead foresaw ....