LexMANMOHAN SHARMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1610 MAN MOHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHANAND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4294 of 2014) APRIL01,2014 [T. s. THAKUR AND c. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Service Law: . AppointmenVSelection -Award of bonus marks on the basis of domicile for appointment - Was held as unconstitutional in Kailash Chand Sharma's case with prospective affect except those who were party to that case - Appointments made in compliance with Kailash Chand 0 Sharma's case - Later services of some of the appointees terminated finding the same as fraudulent and not in conformity with Kailash Chand Sharma's case - Writ petitions challenging the termination order dismissed by High Court - Held: The appellants who had not moved the Court prior to the judgment in Kail ash Chand Sharma's case, were . E not entitled to the benefit of Kailash Chand Sharma's case -However, in view of the facts of the case, they are provided one-time concession of relaxation of the upper age limit to be considered in the next selection process. F In compliance with the order in Kai/ash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562, wherein it was held that award of bonus marks on the basis of domicile for appointment of the primary school teachers was not permissible, appointments were made. G Later, the services of several persons were terminated on the ground that they were fraudulently and irregularly appointed as the same were not in confirmity with Kailash Chand sharma's case. H 1610 MANMOHAN SHARMAv. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1611 The writ petitions challenging the termination order A were dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In Kai/ash Chand Sharma's case this 8 Court invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling which implies that the law declared by this _Court would apply only to future selections and appointments.- . Although the prospective overruling left the appointments made before 18th November, 1999 c untouched, the writ petitioners who had moved the High. Court had to be considered afresh vis-a-vis candidates appointed on or after 18th November, 1999 or those in the select list without giving to such appointed/ selected candidates the benefit of bonus marks under the D Circular. Upon such consideration of the writ-petitioners, if they were found to. be superior in merit than those appointed after 18th November, 1999 they were to be offered appointments, if necessary, by removing the latter. [Para 16][1625-E-G] E 1.2 The present appeals can be classified into two categories, namely, Category I comprising the writ petitions that were filed after 18th November, 1999 and before 30th July, 2002 as was the position in Writ Petition No.542 of 2000 filed under Article 32 and dismissed by F this Court and Category II comprising writ petitions that were filed after 30th July, 2002. .The benefit of the judgment in Kai/ash chand Sharma's case cannot be extended to either of the category. [Para 19][1627 -C-E] 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the G appellants cannot be said to be entitled to the relief of regularization of their services as prayed for by them. Though the appellants had been appointed and have · served for nearly a decade, but there are allegations that H 16.12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A such appointments were obtained fraudulently by mis· representation of facts. Criminal cases have already been registered against the appellants. (Para 27] · (1631-D-E] 1.4. Since the appellants will be left without any .B alternate avenues of employment at this stage of their lives, subject to any finding that may be recorded by a . compe~ent Court, as regards the alleged fraudulent nature of the appointments secured by the appellants, it is directed that such of the appellants as were appointed C as teachers and as have now been terminated may be givep a one-time concession of relaxation of the upper age limit and considered in the next selection process in relaxation of rules regarding such age limit prescribed for appointment as teachers. The fresh appointment, if D any, given to them pursuant to the age relaxation shall stand terminated in case they 'are found guilty and sentenced to. imprisonment in the criminal case r'egi~tere.d against them for o.btaining a fraudulent appointment. (Para 27](1631-G·H; 1632-A·C] E . 2. So far as the appellant in civil appeal arisi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.