CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 04-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

T 
'~ 
5i 
,, 
CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
APRIL 4, 2002 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, 
B 
RUMA PAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141. 
Binding precedent-Doctrine of-Judgment of three-Judge Bench and C 
two-Judge Bench-Coriflict-Ejfect of-On facts, dispute over inter se seniority 
between temporary doctors and selectee doctors-Three-Judge Bench upholding 
right of temporary doctors to count their seniority from date of initial 
appointment-Jn subsequent judgment two-Judge Bench holding that temporary 
doctors acquire seniority from the date of their regular appointment-State D 
Government taking action on directions of two-Judge Bench-Writ Petitions 
filed-Referring matter to five-Judge Bench for consideration, Held : Judgment 
of two-Judge Bench does not lay down correct law, being in conflict with 
three-Judge Bench-Two-Judge Bench to follow decision of three-Judge Bench. 
Dispute of inter se seniority arose between the temporary .doctors E 
originally appointed in consultation with Public Service Commission (PSC) 
and selectee doctors appointed through the PSC. Three-Judge Bench upheld 
the right of temporary doctors as a class to count their seniority from the 
date of their initial appointment In subsequent judgment, 2-Judge Bench held 
appointment de hors, the rules do not confer any right of seniority and 
temporary doctors acquired rights only from the date of their regular F 
appointment according to regularisation rules. Thereafter the respondents 
took consequent action on basis of the directions issued by two-Judge Bench. 
Hence the present writ petition which is referred for consideration to five-
Judge Bench. 
The question which arose for consideration is with regard to existence 
of conflict between the judgment of the three-Judge Bench and the tw<>-Judge 
Bench, the effect of such conflict, if any, and whether the writ petitions should 
be finally decided by this Bench or not. 
913 
G 
H 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Answering the question, the Court 
HELD : 1. While the three-Judge .Bench upheld the right of temporary 
doctors as a class to be entitled to count seniority from the date of their initial 
appointment, by the subsequent judgment the two-Judge Bench has taken a 
different view by holding that temporary appointees cannot claim seniority 
B from the date of their initial appointment but can count the same only from 
the date of their regularisation under the Regularisation Rules. This being 
the core issue involved in the dispute between the temporary doctors and 
selectee doctors, the two-Judge Bench has taken a directly conflicting view 
from that taken by the three-Judge Bench. [921-G-H; 922-A] 
c 
2.1. The principles of the doctrine of binding precedent are no more in 
doubt. This is reflected in a iarge number of cases decided by this Court. 
[922-B] 
2.2. Most of the decisions of this Court are of significance not merely 
D because they constitute an adjudication on the rights of the parties and resolve 
the disputes between them but also because in doing so they embody a 
declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future cases. The 
doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration 
of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial 
decision. Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, therefore, 
E there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the 
decisions of this Court. [924-C-E] 
2.3. Applying the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh and Parija's 
case* it is held that the judgment of the two-Judge Bench of this Court as 
modified by the subsequent order by the same Bench does not lay down the 
F correct law, being in conflict with the judgment of three-Judge Bench. 
Therefore, these writ petitions be placed before a Bench of three Judges for 
final disposal [925-A, G] 
*Union of India and Anr. etc. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc., [1989] 
G 2 SCC 754 and Pradip Chandra Parija and Ors. v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik 
and Ors., [2002] 1 sec, relied on. 
State of U.P. and Anr. v. Dr. MJ. Siddiqui and Ors., [1980f 3 SCC 174, 
referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
Writ Petition (C) No. 43 of 
H 1998. 
) . 
CHANDRA PRAKASH v. ST ATE [SANTOSH HEGDE, J.] 
915 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
WITH 
W.P.(C) Nos. 237, 220, 276, 532, 539, 547/98, 176, 229 a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.