LexASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
rf
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
MARCH 21, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
A
B
Constitution of India, Articles 13, 14, 16 (1), 16(4), 16(4-A), 32, 142,
145(5) r/w Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Public Works Depmtment)
(Higher) Rules, 1990-Reseivation in promotion-Whether Supreme Court in C
Manda! Case could validly postpone effect of invalidity of reservation in
promotion till five yem:~ after date of judgment-Held, yes; directions were not
violative of Arlicle 14 read with 16 (1) and were law under Anicle 141; Furlher
held, promotions already made in excess of roster would not be disturbed.
Service Law-Constitution of India, Arlicles J4, 16(1)! 16(4), 16(4-A) D
and 335-Whether right to promotion is a fundamental right-Held, no; it is
a statutory right; Fwther held, Article 16 (4-A) read with Arlicles 16(4) and
14 guarantee a fundamental right to promotion to Dalits and Tribes where
they have inadequate representation co11siste11t with efficiency of administra-
tion.
. Interpretation of Constitution-Rule of Stare Decisis in -Held, not an
inexorable or rigid ntle-Constitution of India, A1ticles 141, 145(5).
E
The Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Public Works Department)
(Higher) Rules, 1990 provided for reservation in promotions. The promo-
F
lion of the respondents to various posts in the Public Works Department
of the Government of Uttar Pradesh was made between November 17, 1992
and December 11, 1993 and therefore were saved by the directions in Indira
Sawhney v. Unio11 of India, [1992] Supp 3 SCC 217 ('Manda! Case') since
they were made within five years of the date of the judgment. The appel- G
!ants challenged the promotions before the High Court unsuccessfully.
Before this Court the appellants and other writ petitioners con-
tended that the operation of the judgment of the majority in the Mandai
Case that reservation in promotion was unconstitutional could not have
been postponed by prospective overruling of the ratio in The General H
269
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997) 3 S.C.R.
A Manager, Southem Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 SCR 586 ('Rangachari's
Case'). The direction to postpone the effect of the decision was not the
judgment of the majority of the judges in the Manda! Case and was a void
ab inito. Some of the private Respondents contended that with the insertion
of Article 16 (4-A) by the Constitution (77th) Amendment) Act of 1995
B effective from June 17, 1995, their promotions were validly made.
c
The question that arose for determination were whether the right to
promotion was a fundamental right and whether the direction regarding
prospective operation of the decision in the Manda/ Case was violative of
Articles 14 and 16 (1) and void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The power under Article 142 being a constituent power
available only to this Court, the directions given in the Manda! case were
neither violative of rights under Article 14 read with Article 16(1), nor ultra
D vires the power, void or incompatible to or inconsistent with the doctrine
of equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) or the
Constitution. On the other hand, the power was exercised by this Court
under Article 142 read with Articles 32 and the direction postponing the
operation of the decision for a period of five years was a law of the land
E under Article 141. The question of such a law being void abinitio or nullity
or v9idable does not arise. [320-H, 321-A, 318-C]
Indira Sawhney v. U11io11 of I11dia, [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217, explained.
The Ge11eral Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 SCR
F 586; A.R. A11tulay v. RS. Nayak, [1988] 2 SCC 602; Delhi Judicial Services
Associatio11, Tis Hazari v. State of Gujarat, [1991] 4 SCC 406; In Re; Vi11ay
Chandra Misra, [1995] 2 SCC 584; Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Const1Uctio11 Co. (P) Ltd., [1996] 4 SCC 622; Waman Rao v. Unio11 of India,
[1981] 2 SCR 1; Golaknath v. State of Punjab, [1967] 2 SCR 762;
Keshavana11da Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [1973] Supp. SCR 1; U11ion
G Carbide v. Unio11 of I11dia, [1991] 4 SCC 584; M. Venkateswarnlu v. Govern-
ment of A.P., [1996] 5 SCC 167; U11ion of India v. Madhav, JT (1996) 9 SC
320; G.S./.C. Karamachari Union v. Gujarat Small I11dustries Corpon, JT
(1997) 1 SC 384; S. Sathyapriya v. State of A.P., [1996Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.