LexVIRENDER SINGH HOODA AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VIRENDER SINGH HOODA AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARY ANA AND ANR. OCTOBER 27, 2004 B [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] Service Law: Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services, C Common/combined Examination Act, 2002-Competitive Examination- Appointment of candidates in excess to the posts advertised-Directed by writs of the Court in view of Government Circulars-Retrospective legislation repealing the Circulars-Constitutional validity of-Held: Retrospective legislation can change the basis of judicial legislation unless it is violative D of Chapter III and other Constitutional provisions-But it cannot by a bare declaration directly overule, reverse or override a judicial decision- Legislation of the Act does not amount to usurpation of judicial power by the legislature-It amounts to only removal of basis of the decision by repealing the Circulars-It is also not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-Retrospectivity in the Act is not ultra vires except to the extent E it takes away the appointments already made - First Proviso to Section 4(3) is harsh, excessive, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent it provides for dispensing the services of already appointed candidates-Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930- Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. F Statutory Rules vis-a-vis Executive instruction-Prevailing effect of- Held: Where statutory Rules are in contradiction with the Executive instructions, the Rules will prevail. Posts were advertised in 1989 by Haryana Public Service Commission G for recruitment to Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other allied services through combined competitive Examination. The appointments to the posts were made by the end of year 1992. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.215 of 2002 secured 8th, 10th and 12th rank respectively in the merit list, but could not be appointed to the posts in Executive Branch as only 7 General Category posts were advertised. The petitioners in Writ Peti'tion H 720 - -- - VIRENDERSINGHHOODAv. STATEOFHARYANA 721 Nos. 216, 217, 218 and 224 of2002 were also not appointed to the posts in A Executive Branch for the posts advertised in the year 1992. The petitioners had approached the Court. This Court in Virendra S. Hooda v. State of Haryana and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 696 and in Sandeep Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (C.A. No. 7422 of (1999) judgment dated 9.11.2000 passed by Supreme Court), in the light of Government Circulars dated 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 held that all those vacancies which had occurred in B Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) upto the period of six months from the date of recommendations made by the Haryana Public Service Commission were required to be filled, out of the same selection. The petitioners were appointed to the posts in Executive Branch pursuant to the order. Appointment of other petitioners to the Executive Branch was also directed relying on C Hooda 's case. In view of the interpretation in Hooda 's case and Sandeep Singh 's case, the problem faced by the State was th:it during long gap between one advertisement and the other, number of other persons attained eligibility who would be deprived of opportunity to compete for the posts advertised D subsequently besides there being absence of waiting list provision in the statutory rules. In order to overcome the difficulties Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services, Common/ Combined Examination Act, 2002 was enacted w.e.f. 1989 repealing the Circulars and clarifying the position for future. The Act was challenged before this Court to the extent of its retrospective application. The questions for determination were: 1. Whether the Act, to the extent of its retrospectivity, is ultra vires as E it amounts to usurpation of judicial power by the legislature or it, removes F the basis of decisions in Hooda and Sandeep Singh 's case? 2. Whether the Act is violative of Articles 14 and·16 of the Constitution oflndia? The respondents in C.A. Nos. 3937-38 of2001 who were at serial Nos. G 9 and 10 in the 1989 merit list had been directed to be appointed in Executive Branch by High Court in compliance of decision in Hooda 's case. State has come in appeal to this Court challenging order of High Court. I.A. No.4 of 2004 in W.P. No.215 of2002 was filed by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.