Precedents – Law of precedents – “Scarecrow” of a litigation – Conflicting decisions that fail to respect and follow the precedent set by Supreme Court cause uncertainty and chaos – On facts, conflicting opinions in different decisions of High Court of Rajasthan contrary to the true and correct interpretation of the principle of prospective overruling given in decisions of the Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and thereafter in Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others case has caused this annoying and festering litigation to prolong since 1999, that in course of time has become so complicated that no man knows what it means.
Res judicata – Doctrine of res judicata and law of precedent – Difference between – Held: Res judicata operates in personam i.e. the matter in issue between the same parties in the former litigation, while law of precedent operates in rem i.e. the law once settled is binding on all under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court – Res judicata binds the parties to the proceedings for the reason that there should be an end to the litigation and therefore, subsequent proceeding inter-se parties to the litigation is barred – Therefore, law of res judicata concerns the same matter, while law of precedent concerns application of law in a similar issue – In res judicata, the correctness of the decision is normally immaterial and it does not matter whether the previous decision was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body – Precedents – Doctrines /Principles.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 141 – Binding precedent – Appointment – To post of Primary School teachers in Zila Parishads of various districts of the State of Rajasthan – Award of bonus marks on basis of domicile to candidates seeking such appointments – Challenged – Declared unconstitutional by Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court by decision dated 18-11-1999 in writ proceedings – Supreme Court affirmed the decision in Kailash Chand Sharma case, however, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, it protected appointments made on or before 17-11-1999 and confined relief only to those writ petitioners who had moved the High Court before 18-11-1999 – However, in several subsequent decisions of Rajasthan High Court, reliefs were granted to writ petitioners who had not filed writ petition before the cut-off date of 18-11-1999 fixed in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case – Some of these decisions were made even after the decision of Manmohan Sharma’s case on 01-04-2014 wherein the Supreme Court declined to enlarge the scope of directions issued in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case – Held: Authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Court must be respected and followed as any departure therefrom would cause uncertainty, unnecessary and speculative litigation – Directions given by Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case were a binding precedent u/Art.141 which was affirmed and elucidated by Supreme Court in Manmohan Sharma’s case – Consequently, candidates who had not filed writ petitions on or before 17-11-1999 would not be entitled to appointment upon recalculation of marks by exclusion of bonus marks from the marks of the selected candidates – Such direction however would not apply to individual cases where decisions of High Court though contrary to the ratio in Kailash Chand Sharma case had attained finality and thus would operate as res judicata – Service Law – Appointment. Doctrines / Principles – Doctrine of prospective overruling – Invocation of – Held: Doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked for balancing of competing claims – Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan case while affirming the findings of a Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court dated 18-11-1999 held that award of bonus marks on basis of domicile to candidates seeking appointment (as primary school teachers in Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan) amounted to impermissible discrimination – However, keeping in view the factual matrix of the case, the Supreme Court felt that there was a need to balance competing claims and thus partially applied the doctrine of prospective overruling whereby notwithstanding the ratio, appointments made before 18-11-1999 were left untouched and saved – Ratio and direction invoking doctrine of prospective overruling, applied in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case was affirmed and elucidated by Supreme Court in Manmohan Sharma’s case – Accordingly, all pending matters before High Court, to be decided on basis of decisions in Kailash Chandra Sharma’s and Manmohan Sharma’s cases and the instant cases, subject to condonation of delay, when justified and satisfactorily explained – Service Law – Appointment.
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 317 and Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 782 – affirmed.
Deepak Kumar Suthar and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1999) 2 Rajasthan Law Reporter 692 – distinguished.
Naval Kishore case (decided by Rajasthan High Court on 30-07-2012) - held, impliedly overruled.
Makhija Construction and Engineering Private Ltd v. Indore Development Authority and Others (2005) 6 SCC 304; Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450 : [1997]
1 Suppl. SCR 184; Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association and Ors. v. Bihar
Education Service Association and Others (2012) 13 SCC 33 : [2012] 11 SCR 50 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.