http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BABURAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C C JACOB & ORS.  (WITH C.A NO.10909/96)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/03/1999

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde, S. Saghir Ahmed

JUDGMENT:

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

     C.A.  Nos.10658-59/96 :

     These  appeals arise out of the order dated  22.9.1995 made  by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Ernakulam Bench,  (for  short  ‘the tribunal’)  in  O.A.   Nos.186/94, 961/95  and 1192/94.  The applicants therein questioned  the selection  made by the Departmental Promotion Committee  and consequential  promotion  of  the appellant to the  post  of Superintendent   of  Customs  in  a  vacancy  reserved   for Scheduled  Castes.   The contention before the tribunal  was that  the percentage of reservation has always to be  worked out  in  relation  to the number of posts which  formed  the cadre  strength  and the said reservation is not to be  made with reference to a vacancy.

     Since  the law in regard to the above stated  position was nebulous, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of R K Sabharwal & Ors.  v.  State of Punjab & Ors.  (1995 2 SCC   745)  settled  the  said   issue  holding  that   such reservation is in relation to the number of posts comprising in the cadre and not in relation to vacancies.  The judgment of  the Constitution Bench was delivered on 10.2.1995. This Court  in the said judgment after taking into  consideration the fact that the law was not clear till that date, observed thus  :  "We, however, direct that the interpretation  given by  us to the working of the roster and our findings on this point  shall be operative prospectively." The question  that arises  for our consideration in this case is:  was it  open to  the  tribunal  to  apply  the  law  laid  down  in  R  K Sabharwal’s  case (supra) to the facts of the case in  hand. The  brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding  this question  are that in June, 1993, the Departmental Promotion Committee  (for short ‘the DPC’) considered the  suitability of candidates eligible for promotion to four vacancies which arose  during  1993-94  in the cadre  of  Superintendent  of Customs (Preventive) from the post of Preventive Officers in which  proceedings of the DPC the appellant was chosen to be promoted  against  a  reserved  vacancy  earmarked  for  the Scheduled  Castes.   The  said  decision   of  the  DPC  was challenged  before  the  tribunal on 27.1.1994  wherein  the applicants contended that they are entitled to be considered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

for  promotion to the category of Superintendent of  Customs in  the  concerned  vacancy,  treating  these  vacancies  as unreserved.   Consequently,  they prayed that their case  be considered  for promotion on merits.  During the pendency of the  applications before the tribunal, the appellants herein came  to  be  promoted on 26.6.1994 as  against  a  reserved vacancy  which  arose on 1.6.1994.  The tribunal on  22.9.95 following the judgment of this Court in the Sabharwal’s case (supra),  allowed  the applications and held that there  had been   an   erroneous  application  of  the   principle   of reservation  resulting  in  appointment of  Scheduled  Caste candidates  in  excess of the quota earmarked for them.   It directed  the  concerned  respondents   to  recalculate  the entitlements of different categories and take further action applying  the  quota  rule  to  the cadre  and  not  to  the vacancies  as they arose.  It further directed that till the quota  is correctly maintained, no appointment will be  made from  the groups which have exceeded the quota reserved  for them.   As noted above, the finding of the tribunal is based on  the  ratio  of the judgment laid down by this  Court  in Sabharwal’s  case (supra).  The contention of the  appellant in  these  appeals is that the judgment in Sabharwal’s  case was  made effective prospectively, hence, the same could not have  been applied to the promotion of the appellant.   This contention  was negatived by the tribunal on the ground that the  decision of the DPC in selecting the appellant does not amount  to  an appointment and in view of the fact that  the appellant’s  promotion was made subsequent to filing of  the petition,  the  appellant  cannot claim the benefit  of  the prospectivity  given  to  the Sabharwal’s judgment  by  this Court.   We  are  unable  to agree with  this  view  of  the tribunal.  It is to be noted that the prospectivity given to Sabharwal’s  case was obviously on the ground that there was a  doubt in regard to the position of law until the same was clarified  by this Court in Sabharwal’s case.  The  decision of  the  DPC  was taken in June, 1993;  much  prior  to  the judgment  in  Sabharwal’s case.  It is only pursuant to  the decision  of  the DPC, the appellant came to be promoted  on 27.6.1994  which is also a date prior to the delivery of the judgment   in  Sabharwal’s  case.   In  our   opinion,   the prospectivity was given to Sabharwal’s case only to see that status  prevailing prior to the judgment in Sabharwal’s case should not be disturbed.  The prospective declaration of law is  a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid  reopening of   settled   issues  and  to   prevent   multiplicity   of proceedings.    It  is  also  a  devise  adopted  to   avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation.  By the very object of prospective  declaration  of  law,  it is  deemed  that  all actions  taken  contrary to the declaration of law prior  to its  date of declaration are validated.  This is done in the larger  public interest.  Therefore, the subordinate  forums which are legally bound to apply the declaration of law made by  this  Court are also duty-bound to apply such dictum  to cases  which  would arise in future only.  In matters  where decisions  opposed  to  the said principle have  been  taken prior  to such declaration of law cannot be interfered  with on  the  basis of such declaration of law.  In  the  instant case,  both  decisions of the DPC as well as the  appointing authority  being prior to the judgment in Sabharwal’s  case, we  are  of  the opinion that the tribunal was in  error  in applying  this  decision.   For this reason,  these  appeals succeed  and  are hereby allowed;  setting aside the  orders and  directions  made by the tribunal in OA Nos.186/94,  and 961/95.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

     C.A.  No.10909/1996 :

     In  view  of our judgment in CA Nos.10658-59/96,  this appeal also succeeds and is hereby allowed.