THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus NEMI CHAND MAHELA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 30-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
NEMI CHAND MAHELA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3873 of 2010)
APRIL 30, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Precedents – Law of precedents – “Scarecrow” of a litigation
–  Conflicting decisions that fail to respect and follow the precedent
set by Supreme Court cause uncertainty and chaos – On facts,
conflicting opinions in different decisions of High Court of Rajasthan
contrary to the true and correct interpretation of the principle of
prospective overruling given in decisions of the Supreme Court in
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and thereafter in
Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others case has caused
this annoying and festering litigation to prolong since 1999, that in
course of time has become so complicated that no man knows what
it means.
Res judicata – Doctrine of res judicata and law of precedent –
Difference between – Held: Res judicata operates in personam i.e.
the matter in issue between the same parties in the former litigation,
while law of precedent operates in rem i.e. the law once settled is
binding on all under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the
Supreme Court – Res judicata binds the parties to the proceedings
for the reason that there should be an end to the litigation and
therefore, subsequent proceeding inter-se parties to the litigation is
barred – Therefore, law of res judicata concerns the same matter,
while law of precedent concerns application of law in a similar
issue – In res judicata, the correctness of the decision is normally
immaterial and it does not matter whether the previous decision
was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to
the jurisdictional matter of that body – Precedents – Doctrines /
Principles.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 141 – Binding precedent –
Appointment – To post of Primary School teachers in Zila Parishads
of various districts of the State of Rajasthan –  Award of bonus
marks on basis of domicile to candidates seeking such appointments
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 995
995
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
– Challenged – Declared unconstitutional by Full Bench of
Rajasthan High Court by decision dated 18-11-1999 in writ
proceedings – Supreme Court affirmed the decision in Kailash Chand
Sharma case, however, by applying the doctrine of prospective
overruling, it protected appointments made on or before 17-11-1999
and confined relief only to those writ petitioners who had moved
the High Court before 18-11-1999 – However, in several subsequent
decisions of Rajasthan High Court, reliefs were granted to writ
petitioners who had not filed writ petition before the cut-off date of
18-11-1999 fixed in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case – Some of these
decisions were made even after the decision of Manmohan Sharma’s
case on 01-04-2014 wherein the Supreme Court declined to enlarge
the scope of directions issued in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case –
Held: Authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High
Court must be respected and followed as any departure therefrom
would cause uncertainty, unnecessary and speculative litigation –
Directions given by Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma’s case
were a binding precedent u/Art.141 which was affirmed and
elucidated by Supreme Court in Manmohan Sharma’s case –
Consequently, candidates who had not filed writ petitions on or
before 17-11-1999 would not be entitled to appointment upon
recalculation of marks by exclusion of bonus marks from the marks
of the selected candidates – Such direction however would not apply
to individual cases where decisions of High Court though contrary
to the ratio in Kailash Chand Sharma case had attained finality and
thus would operate as res judicata – Service Law – Appointment.
Doctrines / Principles – Doctrine of prospective overruling –
Invocation of – Held: Doctrine of prospective overruling can be
invoked for balancing of competing claims – Supreme Court in
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan case while affirming the
findings of a Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court dated
18-11-1999 held that award of bonus marks on basis of domicile to
candidates seeking appointment (as primary school teachers in Zila
Parishads in the State of Rajasthan) amounted to impermissible
discrimination – However, keeping in view the factual matrix of the
case, the Supreme Court felt that there was a need to balance
competing claims and thus partially applied the doctrine of
prospective 

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