K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS.versusGOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

                          (2014) 7 S.C.R. 348


A                   K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS.
                                    v.
                        GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 4947-4951 of 2014)
                            APRIL 29, 2014
B
              [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

          · Service Law - Promotion - GOMs permitting promotion
     by transfer, struck down by State Administrative Tribunal in
C    view of Supreme Court decision dated 7th November, 2001
     in V. Jagannadha Rao's case - Further direction of Tribunal
     that striking down of the G. 0. Ms. would only be prospective
     and any action taken in compliance with the Rules till 7th
     November, 2001 be not disturbed - High Court set aside order
D    of Tribunal to the extent the same held the judgment in V.
     Jagannadha Rao to be prospective in its application and as
     a result appellants-employees faced prospects of reversion
     - Doctrine of prospective overruling - Applicability of - Held:
     On facts, not applicable - The promotions were ordered by
E    the State and not snatched by the appellants - That apart on
     the date the promotions were made there was no element of
     risk nor were the promotions made subject to determination
     of any legal controversy as to entitlement of the incumbents
     to such promotion - The law was in a state of flux till the legal
     position eventually came to be settled in V. Jagannadha
F·
     Rao's case - In the circumstances of the case, even if the
     High Court was not competent to invoke the doctrine of
     prospective overruling, nothing prevents the Supreme Court
     from doing so having regard to the fact that those promoted
G    under the impugned rules had held their respective positions
     for a considerable length of time making reversion to their
     parent zone/cadre not only administratively difficult but
     unreasonably harsh and unfair and bound to have a
     cascading effect, prejudicing even those not parties before the

H                                  348
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. & 349
                   ·ORS.
Court -Impugned GoMs were rightly declared ultra vires ofthe A
Presidential Order by the State Administrative Tribunal, but
said declaration not to affect promotions and appointments
made on basis of said GoMs prior to 7th November, 2001,
the date when V. Jagannadha Rao's case was decided by
Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 . :. . Art: }09 8
proviso.

     Doctrines . :. . Doctrine of prospective overruling - Origin
 and applicability of - Discussed.

       Aggrieved by G.O.M. No.14, Labour Employment & C
 ·Training (Ser. IV) Dep~rtment, dated 26th November, 1994,
  as amended by G;O.M. No.22 dated 9th May, 1996, some
  employees had filed petitions before the Andhra Pradesh
  Administrative Tribunal. In view of the Supreme Court
  decision dated 7th November, 2001 in V. Jaganiiadha D
  Rao's case (whereby the legal position eventually came
  to be settled), the Tribunal struck down the impugned
  G.O.Ms as unconstitutional to the extent the same
  provided a channel for Senior Assistant and Senior
  Stenographer in Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service E
  working in the Head Offices of Labour Department and .
  those in Factories and Boiler Departments besides those
  in the Subordinate Offices in the said Departments for
  appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Labour
. Officer.                                                  ·· F
                                                                ,·

        The Tribunal however further directed that the
   striking down of the impugned G.O.Ms. would only be
   prospective and that any action taken in compliance with
   the Rules till 7th November,'2001 shall not be .disturbed
   nor any employee promoted on the basis of the legal· G
   position that ~~evailed earlier to the decision of this Court
·. in \I. Jagannadha 7~ao's case reverted.
     Writ Petitions were filed challenging the judgment of
 the Tribunal to the extent it saved the promotions already H.
    350      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A made on the basis of the impugned G.O.Ms. The High
  Court held that the doctrine of prospective overruling
  could be invoked only by the Supreme Court and not by
  other Court including High Courts exercising powers
  under Article 226 of the Constitution; and accordingly set
B aside the order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal
  to the extent the same held the Supreme Court judgment
  in V. Jagannadha Rao to be prospective in its application.

       The appellants-employees were not arrayed as
C parties to the writ petition filed before the High Court. But
  they were affected by the striking down of the rules and
  facing the prospects of reversion. Feeling aggrieved, they
  filed Review petitions which were however dismissed.
  Hence the present appeals.

D         Disposing of the appeal, the Court

        HELD:1.1. The doctrine of prospective overruling has
  its origin in American jurisprudence. It was first invoked
  in this country in Golak Nath case, with this Court
E proceeding rather cautiously in applying the doctrine,
  being conscious of the fact that the doctrine had its origin
  in another country and had been invoked in different
  circumstances. The Court sounded a note of caution in the
  application of the doctrine to Indian conditions. However,
F the doctrine has not remained confined to overruling of
  earlier judicial decision on the same issue as was
  u.nderstood in Go/ak Nath's case. In several later
  decisions, this Court has invoked the doctrine in different
  situations including in cases where an issue has been
  examined and determined for the first time. This Court held
G that it was open to the Court to grant, mould or restrict the
  relielin a manner most appropriate to the situation before
  ft in such a way as to advance the interest of justice. [Paras
  8, 9] [360-H; 361-A-B, F-G; 363-B]
H         1.2. The 'Doctrine of Prospective Overruling' is a rule
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &          351
                   ORS.
of judicial craftsmanship laced with pragmatism and A
judicial statesmanship as a useful tool to bring about
smooth transition of the operation of law without unduly
affecting the rights of the people who acted upon the law
that operated prior to the date of the judgment overruling
the previous law. [Para 14] [364-F-G]                      B

      State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and
 Ors. 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 574; Govt. Of A.P. and Anr. v. 8.
 Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (2000) 4 SCC
 262 - held stood overruled.
                                                              c
       C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 1967
  SC 1643; India Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu &
  Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 12; Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa
  & Ors. 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 430; Union of India & Ors. v.
  Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588; Ashok Kumar D
  Gupta & Anr. V. State of UP. 8c0rs. (1997) 5 SCC 201;
  Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagatvaru & Ors. v. State of
. Kera/a (1973) 4 SCC 225; Mis Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd.
  etc. etc. v. State of UP. & Anr. 2001 (5) sec 519; and
  Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993) E
. 4 sec 727 - referred to.

     2.1. In the instant case, it is unnecessary for this
 Court to go into the question whether the doctrine of
 prospective overruling was available even to the High. F
 Court. Even if the High Court was not competent to
 invoke the. doctrine, nothing prevented this Court from
 doing so having regard to the fact that those promoted
 under the impugned rules had held their respective
 positions for a considerable length of time making
 reversion to their parent z.one/cadre not only G
 administratively diffi.c_ult but unreasonably harsh and
 unfair. [Para 17] [367-C-E]
     2.2. Promotions made before the pronouncement of
 the order in Jagannadha Rao's case i.e. before 7th H
    352     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A    November, 2001 continued for nearly ten years till the
     revi~w petition filed by the appellants was dismissed and
     the matter brought up before this Court. In that backdrop,
     counsel for the respondent-State was asked to take
     instructions whether the State Government was ready to
 B create supernumerary posts to accommodate the
     appellants and prevent their reversion. Since the
     respondent-State did not express its willingness to create
     supernumerary positions, there is no option but to
    ·examine the question of invoking the doctrine of
 c prospective overruling on the merits of the case having
     regard to the facts and circumstances in which the
     question arises. While doing so, it must be pointed out
     that the respondents are not correct in suggesting as
     though the appellants had taken any deliberate or
     calculated risk by opting for promotion outside their
 0
     cadres. The respondents have while making ttiat
     assertion ignored the fact that promotions were ordered
     by the State and not snatched by the appellants. Th4t
     apart on the date the promotions were made there was
     no element of risk nor were the promotions made subject
 E to the determination of any legal controversy as to the
     entitlement of the incumbents to such promotion. Not
     only that, the incumbents who had been sent out on
     promotion as Assistant Labour Officers · had
  . subseque'°'tly been p,romoted as Assistant Labour
F ' Commissioners or Deputy Labour Commissioners. Such
     being the position reverting these officers at this distant
     point of time, to the posts of Senior Stenographers in
     their parent cadre does not appear to be either just, fair
. , or equitable especially when upon reversion the State
 G does no~ propose to promote them to the higher
     positions within their zone/cadre because such higher
     posts are occupied by other officers, most if not all of
     whom are junior to the appellants and who may have to
     be reverted to make room for the appellants to hold those
 H higher posts. Reversion of the appellants to their parent
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &            353
                   ORS.
cadre is therefore bound to have a cascading effect, A
prejudicing even those who are not parties before this
Court. [Para 18) [368-D-E; 369-B-G]

       2.3. The fact that the appellants were not arrayed as
  parties before the Tribunal or before the High Court also     8
!brings the fact s1tuation of the present case closer to that
  in Kai/ash Chand's case. The law in the present case was;
.as in Kai/ash Chand's case, in a state of flux. Such being
 the position, there is no reason why the doctrine of
  prospective overruling cannot be invoked in the instant       C
  case. Just because, this Court had not addressed that
  question in Jagannadha Rao's case is also no reason to
  refuse to do so in the present case. That apart,
  Jagannadha Rao's case was dealing with a different set
  of norms comprising GoMs No.14 and 22 referred to
  earlier. While the basic question whether such GoMs           D
  permitting promotion by transfer from one department to
  the cadre or zone to another may have been the same, it
. cannot be denied that the rules with which this Court was
  concerned in Jagannadha Rao's case were different from
  those being dealt with in the present case. On the            E
  question .of application of.doctrine of prospective
  overruling, the judgment in Jagannadha Rao's case will
  not stand as an impediment for this Court. [Para 18] [369-
  G.H; 370-A-C]
                                                                F
    V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 401 - explained.

     Kai/ash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(2002) 6 sec 562 - held applicable.
                                                                G
    3. In the result, it is held that while GoMs No.14 and
22 have been rightly declared to be ultra vires of the
Presidential Order by the State Administrative Tribunal,
the said declaration shall not affect the promotions and
appointments made on the basis of the said GoMs prior H
    354      SUPREME COURT REPORTS.               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   to 7th November, 2001, the date when Jagannadha Rao's
    was decided by this Court. [Para 19) [370-D-E]

                        Case Law Reference :
                 o
          (2001) 1 sec 401          explained          Para 2
B
          1'989 supp. (1) sec 574   held -stood        Para 4
                                    overruled
          (2000) 4 sec 262          held stood         Para 4
                                    overruled
c         AIR 196.7 SC 1643         referred to        Para 8
          (1990) 1 sec 12           referred to        Para 9
          1991 suppl. (1) sec 430 referred to          Para 9
D         (1991) 1 sec 588          referred to        Para 10
                                                                    '
          (1997) 5 sec 201          referred to        Para 11
          (1973) 4 sec 225          referred to        Para 11
          2001 (5) sec 519          referred to        Para 13
E
          (2002) 6 sec 562          held applicable Para 15
          (1993). 4 sec 121         referred to        Para 15

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
F   4947-4951 of 2014.

       From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2007 of the
  High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in WP No. 6068 of 2004, WP
  No.· 6123 of 2004, WP No. 16890 of 2006 dated 03.11.2910
G in WP No. 6068 of 2004, WPMP No. 8971 of 2007, RWPMP
  No. 35762 of 2010.

       Jayant Bhushan, R. Basant, G. Ramakrishna Prasad,
    Mohd. Wasay Khan, B. Suyodhan, Bharat J. Joshi, Filza
    Monnis for the Appellants.
H
 K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &                   355
                          ORS.                           ·>
    Jaideep Gupta, D. Mahesh Babu, Suchitra Hrangkhayval, A
Amjid Maqbool, Amit K. Nain, B. Ramakrishna Rao, Aditya Jain,
Sunita Chaudhary, M. Srinivas Rao, J. Govardhan, Sudha
Gupta, G.N. Reddy, V. V. J. Rao, Vijaya Bhaskar, Chandan
Mishra, Tatini Basu for the Respondents.
                                                                    B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 9th
March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra c
Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court has set aside
the order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal in OA
No.6334 of 1997 to the extent the same holds the judgment of
this Court in V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 401, to be prospective in D
its application. An order dated 3rd November, 2010 passed by
the High Court dismissing a review petition filed by the
appellants against the said order has also been assailed. The
facts in the backdrop are as under:                        .;· ..
                                                         . ' \,_ ,:1'
    3. In V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State rif Andfita 'E
Pradesh and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 401, a three-Judge Bench            ,,,.,"
was examining whether Special Rules framed by the Governor
of Andhra Pradesh under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution to the extent the same permitted "appointment by
transfer" to a higher category on the basis of seniority-cum- F
efficiency were violative of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order
issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Answering the question in the affirmative this Court held that the
Presidential Order dated 18th October, 1975 issued under
Article 371-D of the Constitution was aimed at providing G
equitable opportunities and facilities to the peop_le belonging to
different parts of the State in the matter of public employment,
education etc. and that the Rules framed by the State
Government under proviso to Article 309 whereby UDCs of the
Labour Department, and Factories and Boilers Department H
    356       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of
  Assistant Inspector of Labour/Assistant Inspector of Factories
  were violative of the Presidential Order. The question had
  arisen on account of a challenge mounted by the Ministerial
  employees of the Labour Department against GOMs No.72
B dated 25th February, 1986 and GOMs No.117 dated 28th May,
  1986 whereunder UDCs in the Labour Department and those
  working in Factories and Boilers Department were made
  eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant
  Inspectors of Labour and Assistant Inspectors of Factories. A
c full Bench of Tribunal before whom the challenge came up for
  consideration declared that the impugned Rules to the extent
  they enabled the Ministerial employees of the Factories and
  Boilers Department or any other department to be considered
  for appointment to the posts in the Labour Department were
D violative of paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order and hence
  void. The view taken by the Tribunal was questioned before this
  Court by the aggrieved employees. Dismissing the appeals,
  this Court held that according to the scheme of the Presidential
  Order, local cadre was the unit under para 5(1) thereof for:
  recruitment, appointment, seniority, promotion and transfers.'
E This Court further held that while para 5(2) authorised the State
  Government to make provisions for 'transfer' in certain specified
  circumstances, yet the term 'transfer' could not be enlarged in
  its amplitude so as to include promotional aspects. This Court
  observed:
F
        "18. We find that para 5(2) of the Presidential Order
          speaks of transfer and not of promotion. It would be
          hazardous to accept the contention of the appellants that
          promotion is included in the expression "transfer'' and no I
G         assistance can be availed from the distinction made in      1




          para 5(1) of the Order. No provision or word in a statute
          has to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute has to be
          read as a whole. A statute is an edict of the legislature. It
          cannot be said that without any purpose the distinction
H
          was made in para 5(1) between transfer and promotion
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. & 357
             ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     and such distinction was not intended to be operative in        A
     para 5(2). The intention of the legislature is primarily to
     be gathered from the language used, which means that
     attention should be paid as to what has been said as also
     to what has not been said. (See Mohd. Ali Khan v. CWT
     (1997) 3 SCC 5111 and Institute of Chartered                    B
     Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse (1997) 6 SCC
     312.)

     19. We, therefore, find no reason to accept this stand of
     the appellant that the expression "transfer" takes within its   C
     scope a promotion".

    4. Overruling the decisions rendered by this Court in State
of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Ors.
1989 Supp. (1) SCC 574, and in Govt. Of A.P. and Anr. v. B.
Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (2000) 4 SCC               D
262, this Court held that in terms of Article 371-D (10) of the
Constitution any order made by the President shall have effect
notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the
ConstitutiGn or in any law for the time being in force. This
implies that if the Presidential Order prohibits consideration of    E
employees from the feeder category from other units then any
rule made by the Governor in exercise of powers vested in him
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution will be bad
in law, hence, liable to be struck down. So also if the State
povernment makes any provision which is outside the purview          F
E~ the authority of the Government under para 5(2) of the Order,
any such provision shall also be legally bad and liable to be
struck down. This Court on that logic held:

    "In the case in hand, the impugned provisions do not
    appear to have been framed in exercise of powers under           G
    para 5(2) of the Presidential Order and as such the same
    being a .Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the
    Constitution, the Presidential Order would prevail, as
    provid_ed under Article 371-0(10) of the Constitution.
                                                                     H
    358      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         Even if it is construed to be an order made under para
          5(2) of the Presidential Order, then also the same would
          be invalid being beyond the permissible limits provided
          under the said paragraph. In this view of the matter, the
          Tribunal rightly held the provision to the extent it provides
B         for consideration of employees of the Factories and
          Boilers Units to be invalid, for the purpose of promotion
          to the higher post in the Labour Unit and as such we see
          no .justification for our interference with the said
          cqnclusion of the Tribunal and the earlier judgment of
c         this Court in Sadanandam case 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574
          must be held to have not been correctly decided. As a
          consequence, so would be the case with Satyanarayana
          Rao case (2000) 4 SCC 262."

           5. The current controversy does not relate to GOMs No.72
D dated 25th February, 1986 and GOMs No.117 dated 28th May,
     1986 which fell for consideration before this Court in V.
     Jagannadha Rao's case (supra). The case at hand arises out
     of slightly different though essentially similar circumstances. The
     present batch of cases relates to G.O.M. No.14, Labour
E Employment & Training (Ser. IV) Department, dated 26th
     November, 1994, as amended by G.O.M. No.22 dated 9th May,
     1996. These two G.O.Ms. provide that while Senior Assistants
 · . and Senior Stenographers working in the Subordinate Offices
     of the Labour Department constitute the feeding channel under
F Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate Service Rules,
     Senior Assistants and Senior Stenographers working in the
     Head Offices shall also be eligible for appointment by transfer
     to the post of Assistant Labour Officer. h\ggrieved by the
     G.O.Ms. some of the employees approached the Andhra
G Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for redressal. Their grievance
     primarily was that since the post of Assistant Labour Officer is
     a zonal post, employees working in the respective zones alone
     were entitled to be included in the feeding channel. Inclusion
     of other categories from outside the zone in the feeding channel
H for purposes of promotion or appointment by transfer was
 K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &                  359
           ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
offensive to paras 3(3) and 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public        A
Employment (Organisation of Local Cards and Regulation of
Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. referred to hereinabove as the
Presidential Order against the employees. These petitions
were partly allowed by the Tribunal in terms of its order dated
7th March, 2003 and G.O.M. No.14, dated 26th November,               B
1994, as amended by G.O.M. No.22 dated 9th May, 1996
struck down as unconstitutional to the extent the same provided
a channel for Senior Assistant and Senior Stenographer in
Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service working in the Head
Offices of Labour Department and those in Factories and              c
Boiler Departments besides those in ttie Subordinate Offices
in the said Departments for appointment ~Y transfer to the post
of Assistant Labour Officer. The Tribunal also struck down
related provisions in the impugned G.O.Ms. stipulating quota
and rotation etc. for these categories as being in violation of      D
the Presidential Order with a direction that the respondents shall
not give effect to the said provisions. Having said that the
Tribunal directed that the striking down of the impugned
G.O.Ms. would only be prospective and that any action taken
in compljance wit.h the said Rules till 7th November, 2001 shall
notbe disturbed nor any employe-e promoted on the basis of           E
the legal position that prevailed earlier to the decision of this
Court in V. Jagannadha Rao's case (supra) reverted.

     6: The aggrieved employees, who had approached the
Tribunal having succeeded but only in part, filed Writ Petitions     F
No,6163 and 6068 of 2004 Whereby they challenged the
judgment of the Tribunal to the extent it saved the promotions
already made on the basis of the impugned G.O.Ms. Writ
Petition No.16890 of 2006 was also filed against the very same
judgment by some of the employees who felt aggrieved by the          G
view taken by the Tribunal that the impugned G.O.Ms. were in
violation of the Presidential Order hence unconstitutional. A
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in
terms of the judgment and order under challenge before us,
 allowed Writ Petitions No.6123 and 6068 of 2004 but                 H
    360     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A dismissed Writ Petition No.16890 of 2006 relying upon certain
  decisions rendered by this Court. The High Court has taken the
  view that the doctrine of prospective overruling could be
  invoked only by the Apex Court and not by other Court including
  High Courts exercising powers under Article 2.26 of the
B Constitution. The net effect of the view taken by the High Court,
  therefore, is that not only are the impugned G.O.M. held to be
  unconstitutional, but any action taken pursuant thereto is also
  declared to be unconstitu;ional.

        7. The appellants in these appeals are employees who
C were not arrayed as parties to the writ petition filed before the
   High Court. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and order
   passed by the High Court they filed Review WPMP No.3576
   of 2010, inter a/ia, contending that the judgment under review
   had been passed without impleading employees like the
D appellants as parties to the case even though they were bound
   to be adversely affected by any modification that the High Court
   may have made. It was contended that the review petitioners-
   appellants before us in these appeals were necessary parties
   not only to the O.As filed before the State Administrative Tribunal
E but even to the writ petitions filed before the High Court and
   that in the absence of necessary parties to the proceedings the
   pelotions challenging the Rules were liable to be dismissed.
   That contention was, however, rejected by the High Court on
   the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal ought to have
F been challenged in a separate and independent writ petition
   by anyone aggrieved by the same. The review petitions were,
    accordingly, dismissed and the prayer for grant of leave to
  ·appeal to this Court rejected. The present appeals have been
   filed by the appellants in the above backdrop to assail the
G correctness of the two judgments and orders passed by the
    High Court.
          8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
    The doctrine of prospective overruling has its origin in American
    jurisprudence. It was first invoked in this country in C. Golak
H
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &                    361
             ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1643, with            A
this Court proceeding rather cautiously in applying the doctrine,
was conscious of the fact that the doctrine had its origin in
another country and had been invoked in different
circumstances. The Court sounded a note of caution in the
application of the doctrine to Indian conditions as is evident          B
from the following passage appearing in Golak Nath's case
(supra) where this Court laid down the parameters within which
the power could be exercised. This Court said:

     "As this Court for the first time has been called upon to          C
     apply the doctrine evolved in a different country under
     different circumstances, we would like to move warily in
     the beginning. We would lay down the following
     propositions: (1) The doctrine of prospective overruling
     can be invoked only in matters arising under our
     Constitution; (2) it can be applied only by the highest            D
     court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court as it has the
     constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all the
     courts in India; (3) the sc9pe of the retroactive operation
     of the law declared by the Supreme Court superseding
     its earlier decisions is left to its discretion to be moulded      E
     in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter
     before it."

      9. It is interesting to note that the doctrine has not remained
confined to overruling of earlier judicial decision on the same         F
issue as was understood in Golak Nath's case (supra). In
several later decisions, this Court has invoked the doctrine in
different situations including in cases where an issue has been
examined and determined for the first time. For instance in
India Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1990)           G
1 sec 12, this Court not only held that the levy of the cess was
ultra vires the power of State legislature brought about by an
amendment to Madras Village Panchayat Amendment Act,
1964 but also directed that the State would not be liable for any
refund of the amount of that cess which has been paid or already        H
    362      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A collected. In Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors. 1991
  Suppl. (1) SCC 430, this Court drew a distinction between a
  declaration regarding the invalidity of a provision and the
  determination of the relief that should be granted in
  consequence thereof. This Court held that it was open to the
B Court to grant, mould or restrict the relief in a manner most
  appropriate to the situation before it in such a way as to advance
  the interest of justice.

       10. Reference may also be made to the decision of this
  Court in Union oflndia & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991)
C 1 sec 588 where non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report
  was taken as violative of the principles of natural justice and
  any disciplinary action based on any such report was held liable
  to be set aside. The declaration of law as to the effect of non
  supply of a copy of the report was, however, made prospective
D so that no punishment already imposed upon a delinquent
  employee would be open to challenge on that account.

       11. In Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Ors.
  (1997) 5 SCC 201, a three Judge Bench of this Court held that
E although Golak Nath's case regarding unamendabiltiy of
  fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution had
  been overruled in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru &
  Ors. v. State of Kera/a (1973) 4 SCC 225 yet the doctrine of
  prospective overruling was upheld and followed in several later
F decisions. This Court further held that the Coll.$titution does not
  expressly or by necessary implication provide against the
  doctrine of prospective overruling. As a matter of fact Articles
  32(4) and 142 are designed with words of width to enable the
  Supreme Court to declare the l9w and to give such directions
G or pass such orders as are necessary to do complete justice.
  This Court observed:

          "54...... .. So, there is no acceptable reason as to why the
          Court in dealing with the law in supersession of the law
          declared by it earlier could not restrict the operation of
H         /aw, as declared, to the future and save the transactions,
 K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &                  363
           ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    whether statutory or otherwise, that were effected on the A
    basis of the earlier law. This Court is, therefore, not
    impotent to adjust the competing rights of parties by
    prospective overruling of the previous decision in
    Rangachari ratio. The decision in Manda/ case
    postponing the operation for five years from the date of B
    the judgment is an instance of, and an extension to the
    principle of prospective overruling following the principle·
    evolved in Go/ak Nath case".

     12. Dealing with the nature of the power exercised by the      C
Supreme Court under Article 142, this Court held that the
expression 'complete justice' are words meant to meet myriad
situations created by human ingenuity or because of th.e
operation of Statute· or law declared under Articles 32, 136 or
141 of the Constitution. This Court observed:
                                                                     D
    "60.. ... The power under Article 142 is a constituent
    power transcendental to statutory prohibition. Before
    exercise of the power under Article 142(2), the Court
    would take that prohibition (sic provision) into
    consideration before taking steps under Article 142(2) .E
    and we find no limiting words to mould the relief or when
    this Court takes appropriate decision to mete out justice
    or to remove injustice. The phrase "complete justice"
    engrafted in Article 142(1) is the word of width couched
    with elasticity to meet myriad situations created by human F
    ingenuity or cause or result of operation of statute law or
    law declared under Articles 32, 136 and 141 of the
    Constitution and cannot be cribbed or cabined within any
    limitations or phraseology. Each case needs
    examination in the light of its backdrop and the indelible G
    effect of the decision. In the ultimate analysis, it is for this
    Court to exercise its power to do complete justice or
    prevent injustice arising from the exigencies of the cause
    or matter before it. The question of lack of jurisdiction or
    nullity of the order of this Court does not arise. As held
                     ~                                              H
    364       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A         earlier, the power under Article 142 is a constituent power
          within the jurisdiction of this Court. So, the question of a
          law being void ab initio or nullity or voidable does not
          arise."                                         ·

B      13. In Mis Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. etc. etc. v. State
  of UP. & Anr. 2001 (5) SCC 519, this Court held that the
  doctrine of prospective overruling was in essence a recognition
  of the principle that the Court moulds the relief claimed to meet
  the justice of the case and that the Apex Court in this country
C expressly enjoys that power under Article 142 of the Constitution
  which allows this Court tQ pass such decree or make such order
  as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or
  matter pending before this Court. This Court observed:

          "In the ultimate analysis, prospective overruling, despite
D         the terminology, is only a recognition of the principle that
          the court moulds the reliefs claimed to meet the justice
          of the case - justice not in its logical but in its equitable
          sense. As far as this country is concerned, the power has
          been expressly conferred by Article 142 of the
E         Constitution which allows this Court to "pass such decree
          or make such order as is necessary for doing complete
          justice in any cause or matter pending before it". In
          exercise of this power, this Court has often denied the
          relief claimed despite holding in the claimants' favour in
F         order to do "complete justice".

       14. The 'Doctrine of Prospective Overruling' was,
  observed by this Cour'f as a rule of judicial craftsmanship laced
  with pragmatism and judicial statesmanship as a useful tool to
  bring about smooth transition of the operation of law without
G unduly affecting the rights of the people who acted upon the law
  that operated prior to the date of the judgment overruling the
  previous law.

      15. In Kai/ash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan &
H Ors. (2002) 6 sec 562, the constitutional validity of rules
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT: OF A.P. & 365
             ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
providing for weightage based on domicile of the candidates A
was assailed before the High Court of Rajasthan. The High
Court while reversing its earlier decisions, upholding the grant
of such weightage declared.the rule to be unconstitutional. In
an appeal before this Court one of the questions that fell _for
consideration was whether the selection made on the basis of B
the impugned rule could be saved by invoking the doctrine of
pro.spective overruling. Answering the question in the
affirmative, this Court cited two distinct reasons for invoking the
doctrine. Firstly, it was pointed out that the law on the subject
was in a state of flux inasmuch as the previous decisions of     c
the High Court had approved the award of such weightage. This
Court observed· that .on the date, the selection process started
and by the time it was completed, the law as declared in the
earlier decisions of the High Court held the field. Reversal of
that legal position on account of a subsequent decision D
overruling the earlier decisions was considered to be a
sufficient reason for complying with the doctrine of prospective
overruling to save the selection process and the appointments
made on the basis thereof. Reliance in support was placed
upon the decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL E
Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. Secondly, this
Court held that candidates who stood appointed on the basis
of the selection process had not been impleaded as parties to
the writ petitions that challenged the rules providing for marks
based on the domicile of the candidates. That being so a
judgment treading a new path should not as far as result in F
detriment to the candidates already appointed. The following
observations made by this Court are apposite in this regard:

    "By the time the selection process was initiated and
    completed, these decisions were holding the field.           G
    However, when the writ petitions filed by Kai/ash Chand
    and others came up for hearing before a learned Single
    Judge, the correctness of the view taken in those two
    decisions was doubted and he directed the matters to be
    placed before the learned Chief Justice for constituting     H
    366       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A         a Full Bench. By the time this order was passed on 19-
           7-1999, we are informed that the select lists of candidates
           were published in many districts. On accqunt of the stay
           granted for a period of three months and for other valid
           reasons, further lists were not published. It should be
B         _noted that in a case where the law on the subject was in
           a state of flux, the principle of prospective overruling was
           invoked by this Court. The decision in Managing
           Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar15 is illustrative of this
           viewpoint. In the present case, the legality of the selection
c          process with the addition of bonus marks could not have
           been seriously doubted either by the appointing
           authorities or by the candidates in view of the judicial
           precedents. A cloud was cast on the said decisions only
           after the selection process was completed and the results
           were declared or about to be declared. It is, therefore, a
D
           fit case to apply the judgment of the Full Bench rendered
           subsequent to the selection prospectively. One more
           aspect which is to be taken into account is that in almost
            all the writ petitions the candidates appointed, not to
            speak of the candidates selected, were not made parties
E           before the High Court. Maybe, the laborious and long-
            drawn exercise of serving notices on each· and every
           party likely to be affected need not have been gone
            through. At least, a general notice by newspaper
            publication could have been sought for or in the
F           alternative, at least a few of the last candidates selected!
            appointed could have been put on notice; but, that was
          · not done in almost all the cases. That is the added reason
            why the judgment treading a new path should not as far
            as possible result in detriment to the candidates already
G           appointed."

      16. There was some debate at the Bar whether the High
  Court could have invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling
  even if the State Administrative Tribunal was incompetent to do
H so. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the
 K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. &                  367
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.] ·
respondent~that the predominant legal opinion emerging from         A
the pronouncements of this. Court limited the application of the
doctrine of prospective overruling only by the Supreme Court.
Neither the Tribunal· nor the High, Court could, according to the
learned counsel, have invoked the doctrine assuming that there
was any justification for such invocation in the facts and          B
circumstances of the case.

     17. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learn~d senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, argued and, in
our opinion, rightly so that it was unnecessary for this Court to C
go into the question whether the doctrine of prospective.
overruling was available even to the High Court He urged that
there could be no manner of doubt that even ifthe High Court
was not competent to invoke the doctrine, nothing prevented
this Court· "from doing so having regard to the fact that those
promoted under the impugned rules had held their respective D
positions for a considerable length of time making re.version
to their parent zone/cadre not only administratively difficult but
unreasonably harsh and unfair. It was argued by Mr. Jayant
Bhushan that the law as to the validity of the rules impugned in
the present case.was in a state of flux till the judgment of this E
Court in Jagannadha Rao's case (supra) finally declared that
provisions like the one made by the rules in the instant case
are constitutionally impermissible being il'1 violation of the
Presidential Order. That apart no promotion had been made
after the 7th November, 2001, the date when the judgment of F
this Court in Jagannadha Rao's case (supra) was pronounced.
Such of the promotions as were already made could therefore
be saved to balance equity and prevent miscarriage of justice
Vis-a-vis those who had on the basis of a rule considered valid
during the relevant period been promoted against posts outside G
their zone/cadre.                                  ...

      18. In Jagannadha Rao's case (supra), the petitions were
filed in the year '1987. The State Administrative Tribunal had
declared the rule providing for inter-department transfer by        H
    368      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A promotion to be bad by its order dated 17th April, 1995. The
  legal position eventually came to be settled by the decision of
  this Court in the case on 7th November, 2001. The petitions in
  the present case were filed before the State Administrative
  Tribunal in the year 1997. The Tribunal had on the authority of
B the judgment aforementioned struck down the rules providing
  for ex-cadre/zone promotions by its order dated 27th March,
  2003, but saved the promotions already made. The judgment
  of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order
  passed by the Tribunal to the extent it saved the promotions
c earlier made was pronounced on 9th March, 2007. The review
  petition filed by those affected by the striking down to the rules
  and facing the prospects of reversion were dismissed by the
   High Court on 3rd November, 2010. Promotions made· before
  the pronouncement of the order in Jagannadha Rao's case
   (supra) i.e. before 7th November, 2001 have, thus, continued
0
  for nearly ten years till the review petition filed by the petitioners
  was dismissed and the matter brought up before this Court. We
   had in that backdrop asked learned counsel for the respondent-
   State to take instructions whether the State Government was
   ready to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the
E petitioners and prevent their reversion. An additional affidavit
   filed by the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra
   Pradesh, however, does not appear to be supportive of what
   could be a solution to the stalemate arising out of the impugned
  judgment. The affidavit states that there is no need to create
F supernumerary posts to accommodate the petitioners in their
   original posts i.e. Senior Assistants and senior stenographers.
   It also declines creation of supernumerary posts in the
   Directorate for the petitioners who were working as Assistant
   Labour Officers, Assistant Commissioners of Labour and
G Deputy Commissioners of Labour. The affidavit states that the
   petitioners while working as Senior Assistants and senior
   stenographers had opted to go as Assistant Labour Officers
   outside the regular line on executive posts where the
   incumbents enforce the labour laws. The affidavit suggests as
H though the petitioners had taken a calculated risk in going out
  K. MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. & 369
             ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
 of their cadres by accepting higher positions as Assistant             A
 Labour Officers in another zone. Suffice it fo say that the
 responden~-State has not expressed its willingness to create
 supernumerary positions. We have, therefore, no option but to
 examine the question of invoking the doctrine of prospective
 overruling on the merits of the case having regard to the facts        B
 and circumstances in which the question arises. While doing
 so we must at the threshold point out that the respondents are
 not correct in suggesting as though the petitioners had taken
 any deliberate or calculated risk by opting for promotion outside
 their cadres. The respondents have while making that assertion         c
 ignored the fact that promotions were ordered by the State and
 not snatched by the petitioners. That apart on the date the
 promotions were made there was no element of risk nor were
 the promotions made subject to the determination of any legal
 controversy as to the entitlement of the incumbents to such            D
  promotion. Not only that, the incumbents who had been sent out
 on promotion as Assistant Labour Officers had subsequently
 been promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioners or Deputy
  Labour Commissioners. Such being the position reverting
 these officers at this distant point of time, to the posts of Senior
  Stenographers in their parerit cadre does not appear to us to         E
  be either just, fair or equitable especially when upon reversion
  the State does not propose to promote them to the higher
  positions within their zone/cadre because such higher posts are
  occupied by other officers, most if not all of whom are junior to
  the petitioners and who may have to be reverted to make room          F
  for the petitioners to hold those higher posts. Reversion of the
  petitioners to their parent.cadre is therefore bound to have a
  cascading effect, prejudicing even those who are not parties
  before us. The fact that the petitioners were not arrayed as
  parties before the Tribunal or before the High Court also brings      G
  the fact situation of the present case closer to that in Kai/ash
  Chand's case (supra). The law in the present case was, as in
· Kai/ash Chand's case (supra), in a state of flux. Such being
  the position, we see no reason why the doctrine of prospective
   overruling cannot be invoked in the instant case. Just because,      H
    370     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A this Court had not addressed that question in Jagannadha
  Rao's case (supra) is also no reason for us to refuse to do so
  in the present case. That apart, Jagannadha Rao's case
  (supra) was dealing with a different set of norms comprising
  GoMs No.14 and 22 referred to earlier. While the basic
B question whether such GoMs permitting promotion by transfer
  from one department to the cadre or zone to another may have
  been the same, it cannot be denied that the rules with which
  this Court was concerned in Jagannadha Rao's case (supra)
  were different from those with which we are dealing in the
c present case. We feel that on the question of application of
  doctrine of prospective overruling, the judgment in Jagannadha
  Rao's case (supra) will not stand as an impediment for 'this
  Court.
       19. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the
D orders passed by the High Court and hold that while GoMs
  No.14 and 22 have been rightly declared to be ultra vires of
  the Presidential Order by the State Administrative Tribunal, the
  said declaration shall not affect the promotions and
  appointments made on the basis of the said GoMs prior to 7th
E November, 2001, the date when Jagannadha Rao's was
  decided by this Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

    Contempt Petitions CC) No.445-449 of 2013

         In the light of the above order passed by us, we see no
F   reason to continue with these proceedings which are hereby
    closed and the contempt petitions dismissed.
    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose      Appeals & Contempt Petitions disposed of.