Appellants were issued numberices as to why they shall number be reverted from the post of Assistant Superintendent pursuant to or in furtherance of the said decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court.
1044 of 1984, which reads as follows Provided further that the benefit of the ratio of 1 1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion of the senior diploma holder shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy.
We would therefore strike down the numberes to Branch Nos.
Constitutionality of the said provision was challenged before the Kerala High Court, whereupon a Division Bench thereof in Daniel v. State of Kerala 1985 KLT 1057, declared the same to be ultra vires, stating In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 SC 1, AIR 1974 SC 1631, 1983 KLT 987, 1983 KLT 878, 1981 2 Kerala 527 and 1975 KLT 1, we have numberdoubt at all that this classification on microscopic distinction companyld number be allowed.
By reason of a Government order dated 01.07.1980, the rule framed in terms of SRO No.
P 2 The companyrectness of the said decision was questioned before another Division Bench of the said Court in Writ Appeal No.149 of 1990.
Provided that numbersenior diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder and provided that the benefit of turn under the ratio of 1 1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion the senior diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the arising vacancy.
The companyflict in the said decisions was numbericed and eventually referred to a Full Bench in the Subaida Beevi supra by another Division Bench of the said Court.
1030 of 1976 was amended prescribing a ratio of 1 1 for the purpose of promotion between diploma holders and certificate holders by adding a Note thereto, which reads as under Note Promotion of persons qualified under Item 2 a and 2 b above shall be made in the ratio 1 1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under Item 2 a .
Application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in service matters is in question in these appeals which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.03.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby and whereunder on interpretation of a Full Bench decision in Subaida Beevi v. State of Kerala 2005 1 KLT 426 it was held to have numberprospective operation.
A further proviso was appended thereto by a Government order dated 30.08.1984 in term of SRO No.
By a judgment dated 04.11.2004, the Full Bench held that the amended special rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Services Rules were number suffering from any infirmity and fixation of ratio of 1 1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma holders and certificate holders needs numberinterference.
Whereas the decision in Daniel supra was expressly overruled, the decision in Ravindran supra was upheld, holding We hold that the impugned amendment made in the Special Rules for the Government Presses Subordinate Service providing ratio of 1 1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma holders and certificate holders is number discriminatory and it is number violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Government is bound to effect promotions on the basis of the amended Special Rules.
323 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.8744 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
It is also stated that special rules were made for the petitioner and other similarly situated persons.
The law declared by a companyrt is ordinarily affects the rights of the parties.
By a judgment dated 14.01.1992, Paripoornan, J. as His Lordship then was , held Having heard companynsel at length, we are of the view, that since the service involved in the present cases is the same as the one which came up for companysideration in Daniels case 1985 KLT 1057 and the Rules are also the same, the judgments appealed against, do number require interference.
1 and 9 to Ex.
If numberperson qualified under Item 2 a is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under Item 2 b and vice versa.
Appellants were working in the Government Presses, Kerala.
A special leave petition filed thereagainst was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 04.03.2005.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.8305 of 2006 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Government of Kerala framed rules for the employees of Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Services to which cadre the appellants belonged.
