K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. versus GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 29-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2014) 7 S.C.R. 348 
K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4947-4951 of 2014) 
APRIL 29, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
· Service Law - Promotion - GOMs permitting promotion 
by transfer, struck down by State Administrative Tribunal in 
C view of Supreme Court decision dated 7th November, 2001 
in V. Jagannadha Rao's case - Further direction of Tribunal 
that striking down of the G. 0. Ms. would only be prospective 
and any action taken in compliance with the Rules till 7th 
November, 2001 be not disturbed - High Court set aside order 
D of Tribunal to the extent the same held the judgment in V. 
Jagannadha Rao to be prospective in its application and as 
a result appellants-employees faced prospects of reversion 
- Doctrine of prospective overruling - Applicability of - Held: 
On facts, not applicable - The promotions were ordered by 
E the State and not snatched by the appellants - That apart on 
the date the promotions were made there was no element of 
risk nor were the promotions made subject to determination 
of any legal controversy as to entitlement of the incumbents 
to such promotion - The law was in a state of flux till the legal 
position eventually came to be settled in V. Jagannadha 
F· Rao's case - In the circumstances of the case, even if the 
High Court was not competent to invoke the doctrine of 
prospective overruling, nothing prevents the Supreme Court 
from doing so having regard to the fact that those promoted 
G under the impugned rules had held their respective positions 
for a considerable length of time making reversion to their 
parent zone/cadre not only administratively difficult but 
unreasonably harsh and unfair and bound to have a 
cascading effect, prejudicing even those not parties before the 
H 
348 
K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. & 349 
·ORS. 
Court -Impugned GoMs were rightly declared ultra vires ofthe A 
Presidential Order by the State Administrative Tribunal, but 
said declaration not to affect promotions and appointments 
made on basis of said GoMs prior to 7th November, 2001, 
the date when V. Jagannadha Rao's case was decided by 
Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 ..:... Art: }09 8 
proviso. 
Doctrines ..:... Doctrine of prospective overruling - Origin 
and applicability of - Discussed. 
Aggrieved by G.O.M. No.14, Labour Employment & C 
·Training (Ser. IV) Dep~rtment, dated 26th November, 1994, 
as amended by G;O.M. No.22 dated 9th May, 1996, some 
employees had filed petitions before the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal. In view of the Supreme Court 
decision dated 7th November, 2001 in V. Jaganiiadha D 
Rao's case (whereby the legal position eventually came 
to be settled), the Tribunal struck down the impugned 
G.O.Ms as unconstitutional to the extent the same 
provided a channel for Senior Assistant and Senior 
Stenographer in Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service E 
working in the Head Offices of Labour Department and . 
those in Factories and Boiler Departments besides those 
in the Subordinate Offices in the said Departments for 
appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Labour 
. Officer. 
· · F 
,· 
The Tribunal however further directed that the 
striking down of the impugned G.O.Ms. would only be 
prospective and that any action taken in compliance with 
the Rules till 7th November,'2001 shall not be .disturbed 
nor any employee promoted on the basis of the legal· G 
position that ~~evailed earlier to the decision of this Court 
·. in \I. Jagannadha 7~ao's case reverted. 
Writ Petitions were filed challenging the judgment of 
the Tribunal to the extent it saved the promotions already H. 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 7 S.C.R. 
A made on the basis of the impugned G.O.Ms. The High 
Court held that the doctrine of prospective overruling 
could be invoked only by the Supreme Court and not by 
other Court including High Courts exercising powers 
under Article 226 of the Constitution; and accordingly set 
B aside the order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal 
to the extent the same held the Supreme Court judgment 
in V. Jagannadha Rao to be prospective in its application. 
The appellants-employees were not arrayed as 
C parties to the writ petition filed before the High Court. But 
they were affected by the striking down of the rules and 
facing the prospects of reversion. Feeling aggrieved, they 
filed Review petitions which were however dismissed. 
Hence the present appeals. 
D 
Di

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