P.V. GEORGE AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1198 · Decided: 23-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
P.V. GEORGE AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA & MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 141-Ful/ Bench of High Court 
overruling one decision and upholding another decision of Division 
Bench-State ordering reversion of employees in view of changed law by 
C 
Full Bench-Applicability of doctrine of prospective overruling in service 
matters-Held, doctrine is applicable unless expressly stated-On facts, 
the aggrieved employees were not parties to the overruled decision and the 
applicability of the doctrine was not stated by Full Bench-Hence, the law 
laid down by Full Bench will have retrospective effect. 
D 
Appellant-employees belonged to State Press Subordinate Services. 
The State issued a Government Order amending the Service Rules relating 
to promotion between diploma-holders and certificate-holders. Thereafter, 
the State issued another Government Order appending another proviso to 
the promotion Rule. The High Court in Daniel v. State of Kera/a, [1985] 
E 
KLT 1057 declared the Rule to be uhra vires, Another Division Bench of 
the High Court in Ravindran v. State of Kera/a, (1992) 1 KLT 524 took 
a contrary view. On reference, a Full Bench of the High Court in Subaida 
Beevi v. State of Kera/a, (2005) 1 KLT 426 held that the amended Rule is 
intra vires and overruled the decision in Danial and upheld the decision in 
F 
Ravindran. A Special Leave Petition challenging the Full Court's judgment 
was dir;missed by this Court. 
G 
The State issued notices to the appellants as to why they should not 
be reverted back in view of the law !aid down by the Full Bench which has 
attained finality. A Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High 
Court was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the doctrine 
of prospective ruling would ordinarily apply in service matters and hence 
the law laid down by the Full Bench of the High Court is not applicable to 
H 
them. 
1198 
-; 
I 
) 
rl 
) 
J 
P.V.GEORGE v. STATE 
1199 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Full Bench of the High Court did not say that the 
promotion which had already been granted would not be disturbed. The 
judgment of the Full Bench has attained finality as a Special Leave Petition 
filed thereagainst was dismissed by this Court. If the Rules ultimately were 
held to be constitutional, it was required to be given effect to. The doctrine 
of overruling must be stated expressly. The power must be exercised in the 
clearest possible term. (Paras 17, 18 & 19) [1205-B-E) 
A 
B 
1.2. The rights of the appellants were not determined in the earlier 
proceedings. Merely a law was declared which was prevailing at that point 
C 
oftime. The appellants were not parties therein. Thus, no decision was 
rendered in their favour nor any right accrued thereby. The law declared 
by a court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so 
specifically. (Paras 27 & 29) (1210-B, E-F) 
L.C. GolakNath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR (1967) SC 643 
CB; Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma & Ors. v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University 
& Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 55; MA. Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (20031 
7 SCC 517; Union of India v. Madras Telephone, SC & ST Social Welfare 
Association, (2006) 9 SCALE 626; Managing Director ECJL, Hyderabad 
v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727; R.K. Sabharwa/ v. State of Punjab, 
(1995) 2 SCC 745; Union of India & Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors., 
(1995) 6 SCC 684; Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of UP. [1997) 5 SCC 201; 
Ajit Singh-Jlv. State of Punjab, [1999) 7 SCC 209; Baburam v. C.C. Jacob, 
(1999) 3 SCC 362; E.A. Sathyanesan v. V.K. Agnihotri & Ors., (2004) 9 
SCC 165 and M Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 10 
SCALE 301, referred to. 
Natir;mal Westminister Bank Pie v. Spectrum Plus Limited & Ors., 
(2005) UKHL 41; (2005) 3 WLR 58 and Queen (on the Application of 
Ernest Leslie Wright v. Secretay of State for the Home Department, (2006) 
EWCA Civ. 67, referred to. 
Lord Rodger of Earsferry -
'A Time for Everything under the law : 
Some Reflections on Retrospectivity' (2005) 121 LQR 55, 77, referred to. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Subaida Beevi v. State of Kera/a, (2005) 1 KLT 426 FB and Daniel 
H 
i 
' 
' 
f 
' 
1200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
~ 
; 
~ 
A 
v. State of Kera/a, (1985) KL T 1057 and Ravindran v. State of Kera/a, 
[1992) 1 KLT 524, referred to. 
T' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.