STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus GOPAL CHANDRA RATH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 20-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
v. 
GOPAL CHANDRA RATH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 
B 
[S.C. AGARWAL AND G.B. PATNAIK, JJ.) 
Inte1pretation of Statutes-Validation Act-Powers of legislature to 
validate an Act retrospectively by removing infinnity indicated in any judg-
ment-They cannot merely set aside, annul or ovenide a judgmellt of the 
C 
Cowt. 
All the respondents were appointed as junior teachers in the Depart-
ment of Surgery, State of Orissa, in the year 1971, before the Orissa 
Medical Health Services (Recruitment and Promotion to the Teaching 
D 
Posts in the Medical Colleges) Rules, 1973, came into force, by process of 
selection by a Selection Committee and their inter se seniority before being 
finalised under the Rules of 1973, the Orissa Medical Education Service 
(Recruitment) Rules, 1979 had come into force. Some of the junior 
teachers challenged the gradation list prepared by the State Government 
E 
F 
G 
on the ground that the recruitment had not been made by a Selection 
Committee appointed by the State Government and therefore, the said 
gradation list was not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The 
Orissa Administrative Tribunal allowed the application on a finding that 
the Selection Committee which functioned between June 1971 till the 
promulgamation of the Recruitment Rules of 1973 had not been appointed 
by the State Government and, as such, had no legal authority to make the 
appointment in question. The gradation list prepared in respect of the 
junior teachers appointed between 1960 till 1973 had been quashed. The 
Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Tribunal was dis-
missed. However, the legislature enacted the Orissa Medical Education 
Service (Validation of Gradation List of Junior Teachers) Act; 1988 
validating the gradation list prepared in respect of the junior teachers 
appointed in pursuance of the recommendation of the Selection Committee 
from time to time during the period 1.12.1960 and 22.9.1973 notwithstand-
ing any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal, by substitut-
ing the definition of 'Selection Committee' in the Recruitment Rule of 1979 
H retrospectively, to mean the Selection Committee which was in existence 
816 
'. 
-
••
STATE v. G.C. RATH 
817 
from time to time during the period 1.12.1960 to 22.9.1973. Respondent A 
No.1 (iled an application in the year 1985 claiming seniority over respon-
dent Nos. 2 to 15. The Tribunal allowed it .and declared respondent No.1 
to be senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 15 in the rank of junior teachers with 
consequential benefit. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended that the Tribunal committed gross error in 
holding that the seniority was to be determined with reference to their date 
B 
of appointment as Assistant Surgeons. The respondent alleged that valida-
tion Act being an Act to override the judgment of this Court, it was invalid; 
that the Selection Committee not having been constituted by the State 
Government and that the post of junior teachers and Assistant Surgeons C 
being inter changeable at the relevant point of time, the seniority, inter se 
had to be determined on the basis of their seniority in the rank of Assistant 
Surgeons and accordingly there was no infirmity with the conclusion of the 
Tribunal. 
The questions raised for consideration were (i) whether in view of D 
the validation Act of 1988 inter se seniority of junior teachers was to be 
determined in accordance with clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of 
Recruitment Rules 1979 or with clause (iii) of the sub Rule and (ii) whether 
there had been any lacuna in the Validation Act? 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The legislatures have the powers to validate an Act by 
removing the infirmity indicated in any judgment and that too also 
retrospectively but they cannot merely set aside, annual or override a 
judgment of the Court. The judgment of the Court was ~erely to the effect F 
that the Selection Committee not having been appointed by the State 
Government as required under the Rules, the process of Selection got 
vitiated. The Orissa Medical Education Services (Validation of Gradation 
List of Junior Teachers) Act, 1988 had removed the lacuna by changing 
the definition of the Selection Committee and consequently validating the G 
appointments made by such Committee during the period in question. 
There is no infirmity with the Validation Act. [824-B-C] 
1.2. All the respondents were appoi

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