THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NEMI CHAND MAHELA & Ors.

– 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 THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NEMI CHAND MAHELA AND OTHERS 997 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.