Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

, named as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes) (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, as ultra vires, as it made the provisions of the Ordinance retrospective in operation affecting the rights of the petitioners to get appointment on the basis of completed selection process for appointment on the post of Instructors.

2. This writ application was filed on 21.7.1993. However, when the case was taken up on 14.12.1993, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he would not raise the question of validity of the said Ordinance for the time being. Since it appeared to this Court that the Ordinance was under challenge with some other matters, the case was adjourned. Case was finally admitted for hearing on 16.5.1994 and it was ordered to be listed on 11.7.1994. When the case was taken up by a Division Bench on 13.12.2001 for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court towards order dated 14.12.1993 which had noticed the stand of learned counsel for the petitioners that he was not going to challenge the validity of the said Ordinance. Hence, the Division Bench directed the case to be placed before an appropriate Bench. Therefore, the case has been listed before a single Bench and finally heard by this Bench.

Completion of the process of selection was thus constituted as the relevant factor for the applicability of the old provisions of the Act. All those cases where the process of selection was completed and only the appointment letters had to be issued, were to be treated to be an exception to the amended provisions of the Act. Obviously, if the process of selection comprising of written examination and viva voce had not been completed, the whole exercise had to be done in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interpretation given by the Apex Court about non-obstante clause of the Ordinance, petitioners are fully protected from the operation of the Ordinance against them. He submits that the Apex Court has clearly carved out an exception to the retrospective operation of the Ordinance in respect of the cases in which entire selection process was complete except for issue of appointment letters. He submits that Annexure-5 clearly shows that before the Ordinance No.18 of 1993 came into force, selection process had completed in all respects and even the place of postings were also decided by the Appointment Committee. However, appointment letters could not be issued because of change of policy by the State Government in respect of providing reservation in the said category.

6. Sri Anil Kumar Jha, learned Government Advocate No.2 has submitted that the non-obstante clause in Ordinance No.18 of 1993 covered the cases of the petitioners and the like also and therefore, there was no exception in the operation of the said Ordinance with retrospective effect.

7. This submission of learned Government Advocate No.2 is in the teeth of interpretation given by the Apex Court to the said clause. In view of interpretation of the Apex Court, it is not open to this Court or any authority to interpret the said clause in any other manner. While interpreting the said clause, the Apex Court has clearly held that the cases, in which selection process had completed in all respects but appointment letters had not been issued, shall not be covered by the amended provisions, and unamended Section 4 shall apply to these cases. Therefore, submission of learned Government Advocate No.2 in this respect is fit to be rejected and is hereby rejected.