Allowed

Board of School Education Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2013LPA/569/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of Letters Patent Appeals challenging a Single Judge's direction to grant retrospective relaxation of qualifying marks to physically handicapped candidates. The High Court held that prospectuses have the force of law and criteria cannot be altered after the selection process began. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Single Judge's order was set aside, and the writ petiti

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.1.2013 is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.

Board of School Education Haryana Vs… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�1�

�� 

LPA No.569 of 2013 Date of decision: 5.7.2013

¶6

The Board of School Education, Haryana through its Secretary

¶7

).Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Rajinder Kumar and another ).Respondents 2. LPA No.570 of 2013 Date of decision: 5.7.2013

¶10

The Board of School Education, Haryana through its Secretary

¶11

).Appellant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Devender Singh and others ).Respondents

¶14

��

¶15

��

¶16

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

¶17

judgment?

¶18

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶19

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶20

¶21

Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant.

¶22

Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶23

Mr. Ajay Shekhawat, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in LPA No.569 of 2013.).

¶24

Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 (in LPA No.570 of 2013).

¶25

¶26

��

¶27

This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No.569

¶28

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �2�

¶30

¶31

and 570 of 2013 which have been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8.1.2013 whereby the writ petitions filed by the private respondents (physically handicapped persons) have been allowed and direction has been issued that their result shall be redone by considering them to have passed the examination if they scored 55% or above in the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test Examination (hereinafter referred to as “HTET Examination”).

¶32

The question which arises for consideration is whether the notification dated 3.10.2012 (Annexure A�9) which substituted para Nos. (i) and (viii) of the Haryana Government School Education Department, notification No.7/1�2008�O&M/Co.(1) dated the 15^th July, 2011(Annexure A�6) and the 31^st October, 2011(Annexure A�8) and reduced the eligibility marks to 55% for the HTET Examination for differently abled/physically challenged category was to apply with retrospective effect regarding the examination which was held in November, 2011 result of which was declared on 2.12.2011?

¶33

The learned Single Judge has held that the said notification is to have retrospective effect and thus allowed the writ petition on the ground that the wordings of the same is to provide benefit to the differently abled/physically challenged category who were to be considered as HTET Examination pass and accordingly, given the benefit to the writ petitioners by virtue of the said notification.

¶34

The facts are being taken from the Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2013 which has arisen out of Civil Writ Petition No.23735 of 2011 which was filed by Rajinder Kumar.

¶35

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �3�

¶37

¶38

To examine the aforesaid question, necessary facts of the case needs to be set down. The petitioner who is having physical disability of amputation of right arm had applied for the HTET Examination, 2011 for the level of Class (I to V) in the category of differently abled/physically challenged. The said examination was conducted under the the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the RTE Act”) since teachers have to possess minimum qualification laid down by the academic authority authorised by the Central Government to make them eligible for appointment as teachers. The said minimum qualifications are laid down by the National Council of Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to “the NCTE”) which is the academic authority as per notification dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure A�1) issued under Sub� section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. Thereafter on 23.8.2010 (Annexure A�2), the NCTE laid down the minimum qualifications for a person eligible for appointment as Teacher for level of Classes I to VIII in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act. The minimum qualifications for classes I to V are as under:�

¶39

“(i) CLASSES I�V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

¶40

¶41

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever

¶42

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�4�

name known) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations,2002

¶47

¶48

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.E./Ed.)

¶49

¶50

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

¶51

AND

¶52

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 6. Under Clause 9 of the notification dated 11.2.2011 issued by the NCTE (Annexure A�3), it was further provided that a person who scores 60% or more in the TET examination would be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, Government aided and unaided) were to consider giving concessions to persons belonging to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, other backward classes, differently abled persons etc. in accordance with their extent of reservation policy. Clause 9 of the said notification reads as under:�

¶53

“9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, Government aided and unaided) a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons etc. in

¶54

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�5�

accordance with their extent reservation policy.”

¶59

Since NCTE was in receipt of representations from the State

¶60

Governments and other stake holders in respect of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes for providing relaxation of 5% in qualifying marks In TET examination it was decided by the NCTE in its meeting held on 16.3.2011 that relaxation upto 5% be made available to the persons belonging to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes category in accordance with the extent of policy of the Governments/Union Territories and other school managements. The said decision was to come into force with immediate effect as per letter dated 1.4.2011 (Annexure A�4) though the notification was published on 10.6.2011 (Annexure A�5) whereby in para 3 of the principal notification reservation policy was also added which provided relaxation of 5% in qualifying marks which was to be allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST etc.

¶61

On 15.7.2011 (Annexure A�6) Haryana Government directed that the HTET Examination for recruitment of two types of Teachers i.e. One for classes I�V and second for Classes VI�VIII in all Government schools and aided schools shall be conducted at least once every year by the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani� appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE vide notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended vide notification dated 10.6.2011 and in conformity with the guidelines for conducting the test issued by the NCTE vide letter dated 11.2.2011. As per the said notification, persons who scored 60% or

¶62

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �6�

¶64

¶65

more in the HTET examination would be considered as HTET pass and weightage was to be given to the HTET scores in the recruitment process. However, qualifying the HTET Examination would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it was only one of the eligibility condition for appointment. The candidate was to fulfill other additional qualifications/conditions prescribed from time to time as per State Recruitment Rules. Clause (i) of the said notification reads thus:�

¶66

“A person who scores 60% or more in the HTET exam will be considered as HTET pass and weighage shall be given to the HTET scores in the recruitment process. However, qualifying the HTET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility conditions for appointment. In addition, the candidate will have to fulfill other additional qualifications/conditions prescribed from time to time as per State Recruitment Rules, while applying for the said post.”

¶67

As per Clause (viii) of the said notification, benefit of relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying marks at B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./Senior Secondary level was admissible for SC and differently abled candidates. Clause (viii) reads as under:�

¶68

“Relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying marks at B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./Senior Secondary level is admissible for SC and differently abled candidates.”

¶69

Similarly on 21.7.2011, the State Government directed that the HTET for recruitment of Lecturers/Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) of

¶70

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶71

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �7�

¶72

¶73

various subjects in all Government schools and Aided Schools would be conducted at least once every year by the Board in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by Haryana State School Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group�C) Service Rules. In the said notification also, it was provided that a person who scored 60% or more in the HTET Examination would be considered as HTET pass and relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying marks at Post Graduate level was admissible for scheduled caste and differently abled persons. Similarly NCTE vide notification dated 29.7.2011 made amendment in the notification dated 23.8.2010 and provided relaxation to the extent of 5% in the qualifying marks belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC and physically handicapped. Thereafter, on 31.10.2011 (Annexure A�8) pertaining to the Lecturers and Post Graduate Teachers, the State Government substituted the notification dated 21.7.2011 whereby it reduced the qualifying marks to 55% in the case of a person belonging to scheduled caste category.

¶74

The petitioner appeared in the HTET examination on 6.11.2011 and the result thereof was declared on 2.12.2011 and he scored 86 marks out of 150 marks which was less than 60%. The writ petition came to be filed on the ground that relaxation of 5% in qualifying marks has been given to the persons belonging to the scheduled castes category whereas physically handicapped persons who had severe impairment and given the right of reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1995 Act') had

¶75

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �8�

¶77

¶78

not been given the said benefit. Accordingly, discrimination was alleged and relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks of HTET Examination, 2011 was prayed for.

¶79

In the written statement filed by the State, it was pleaded that the pass percentage for candidates belonging to general categories was 50% and for the candidates belonging to scheduled caste category was 45% and due to some reason relaxation of 5% for the candidates belonging to scheduled caste category could not be made in the notifications and, therefore, the same was granted vide notification dated 31.10.2011 for the persons belonging to scheduled caste category. It was further pleaded that there is no question of granting any relaxation now to the petitioner as the whole purpose to conduct the HTET Examination would be defeated and as per new Service Rules which were now notified by the State Government on 11.4.2012 for all the teaching categories, relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks had been allowed to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled caste (SC) and differently abled candidates had been allowed in Appendix 'B' Note (v) thereof. Reliance was placed upon the observations of a Division Bench judgment dated 17.7.2012 in case �� !��"!�!�#$��#�%&%%'�#(�%) +�,�-$.��-$.��/-$.��- 0-$-�!1 #2.1��!3�/"/4" ��2$5-$��$.1 +3��!-!"�#(��- 0-$-�!1 #2.1��1�"(��"6 "!- 0�-$5�#!1" 3** wherein the said writ petition had been dismissed in which relaxation had been sought in the qualifying marks from 60% to 45% in the HTET Examination for the persons belonging to physically handicapped/ differently abled category. It was further submitted that posts are

¶80

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �9�

¶82

¶83

reserved for the physically challenged category under the provisions of the 1995 Act and the petitioner was not entitled for the relaxation.

¶84

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Board� appellant, it was averred that the Board had issued clarification dated 19.8.2011 that there was no relaxation for any category in the 60% marks required for qualifying the HTET, 2011. All the candidates were required to obtain 60% marks in the HTET, 2011 to qualify the test and the petitioner had failed to qualify the HTET, 2011 as he had only obtained 55% marks. The result was prepared as per notification dated 31.10.2011 and had been declared as per the rules, terms and conditions mentioned in the prospectus.

¶85

It is on the strength of the subsequent notification dated 3.10.2012 issued during the pendency of the litigation, the learned Single Judge held that it was to apply with retrospective effect and accordingly granted the benefit to the petitioners by directing that their result was to be reconsidered and if they had scored 55% marks or above, they were to be considered as pass and they would be entitled for recruitment.

¶86

Counsel for the appellant�Board submitted that the Haryana Government had issued notification on 15.7.2011 directing the Board to conduct the HTET examination and it has been specifically provided therein the eligibility marks to be obtained on the basis of which persons were to be considered as passed and mere passing HTET, 2011 would not confer any right for recruitment/employment and the candidates would have to fulfill other qualifications/conditions prescribed from time

¶87

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�10�

to time as per State Recruitment Rules while applying for the said post. In the said notification itself, 5% relaxation has been provided in the minimum qualifying marks to the differently abled candidates and in pursuance of the said notification, petitioners had appeared in the examination held on 6.11.2011 and the result thereof was declared on 2.12.2011. Thus, the benefit of relaxation of 5% given subsequently vide notification dated 3.10.2012 could not be applicable for the earlier examination, which had already concluded. Accordingly, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in giving retrospective effect to the decision dated 3.10.2012 to the physically handicapped persons and directing that their result be redone.

¶92

On the contrary, counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the 5% relaxation in the HTET, 2011 had been granted on 31.10.2011 (Annexure P�8) to persons belonging to the scheduled caste category, therefore, there was discrimination in relaxing the eligibility criteria and the petitioners being physically disabled were entitled for similar benefits since they had severe impairment and even had been given the right of reservation under the 1995 Act. Reference was made to the communication dated 17.1.2012 appended as Annexure P�14 in Civil Writ Petition No.22485 of 2012 addressed by the NCTE that it was for the State Government to consider the question of giving any concession belonging to differently abled persons and that since the concession had been granted, it would apply with retrospective effect. Reliance was also placed upon a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in ��7�8��#�'9:&�#(�%)*%��$/#��1-$5- ��7/�$# 8�!1 #2.1

¶93

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�11�

1�3 �(-!1" ;$-!2 -��.2- 5�-$ �+3��"�1��"61$#�#.�6-��$��" 3�!0 decided on 12.9.2012. Support was also gathered from the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in �� !��"!�!�#$��#�%*&9<�#( %)��1-4� ��1-$�-$5�-$#!1" �+3��1"��!-!"�#(��2$=-4�-$5�#!1" 3** decided on 29.2.2012. It was submitted that since the State Government has used the word 'substitute' in the notification dated 3.10.2012, the same would be effective from the date of original notifications dated 15.7.2011 and 31.10.2011. 17. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that both the appeals are liable to be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. As submitted by the counsel for the appellant�Board, there is no denying to the fact that the Board had published the prospectus for conducting the HTET, 2011 in which it was specifically provided that 60% marks were to be obtained to qualify the HTET, 2011. The said prospectus was issued in pursuance of the notification dated 15.7.2011 which authorised the Board to conduct HTET, 2011 and the petitioners had applied and sat in the HTET, 2011 which was held on 6.11.2011 and the result thereof was declared on 2.12.2011. The petitioner in CWP No.23735 of 2011 had obtained 86 marks out of 150 marks which is less than 60% marks. The State Government had granted relaxation of 5% vide notification dated 31.10.2011 pertaining to the notification dated 15.7.2011 but the same pertained only to the scheduled caste category and the physically handicapped category was not given any such benefit. From perusal of the communication dated 17.1.2012 addressed by the NCTE to the

¶98

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶99

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �12�

¶100

¶101

counsel for the petitioners, it would be clear that certain candidates belonging to different reserved categories had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.24276 of 2011 Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana seeking relaxation in the qualifying marks from 60% to 45%. The learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the petitioners to first approach the authorities since it involved a decision by the executive. In pursuance of the said decision, the NCTE itself communicated to the counsel for the petitioners that it was for the State Government to consider giving concession to the persons belonging to reserved categories. In pursuance of such representation, the decision was taken on 3.10.2012. Record of the State Government was called for in order to examine the decision making process and as to whether the decision dated 3.10.2012 was to apply to the result which had already been declared on 2.12.2011. A perusal of the relevant noting would show that the relaxation was to be given from prospective examinations to be held in future. The said noting reads as under:�

¶102

“Relaxation to physically handicapped person in STET qualifying marks at par with SC candidates (5%) had been approved in principle in the meetings held on the subject. Accordingly, the approval may be granted. However, this will only be applicable from prospective exams to be held in future.”

¶103

Thus from the aforesaid noting, it would be clear that the Government itself had taken a categoric decision that the benefit of relaxation in eligibility marks for physically handicapped category was

¶104

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶105

LPA No. 569 of 2013 �13�

¶106

¶107

only to be given in the subsequent year. In other words, the Government had decided not to give the said benefit for the examination whose result had already been declared. The benefit of relaxation in qualifying marks in case of scheduled caste category would fall on different footing since notification in their case was issued on 3.10.2011 which was before holding of examination and, therefore, cannot be equated with the facts of the present case.

¶108

It is well settled that the prospectus and conditions thereof have force of law as has been laid down in �-�5"">��-2 � vs. �!-!"�#(� �2$=-4 , ��7*?9:8�*�7�@�8��&'&�� The said view has been reiterated in three Full Benches i.e. �/- 5"">��$.1��-1#!- � v. �!-!"�#(��2$=-4� , ??&7'8��&%9 , �-61�$��-2 � v. **�2$=-4��$��" 3�!0��-!�-�-��??A 78��9&<�* and �-12�� -41-,- � v. �2$=-4��"61$�6-�

¶109

�$��" 3�!0��-�-$51- , ***??<7&8��:%A** . � The observations in the Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra) read as under:�

¶110

“A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SLR 673: 1993(4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University 1994 (4) RSJ 289:1994 (2) SCT 766 (P&H) (FB) another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form

¶111

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�14�

and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a Course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court in �-61�$��-2 ��2$=-4��$��" 3�!0��??A�78��??A 7*8��9&<�7�@�8�7��8� took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwords. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the Co�ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the

¶116

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�15�

prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected.”

¶121

The principle of changing the rules of game midway or after the process of selection process commenced has also been held to be not permissible. The Hon'ble Apex Court in **�-1- -31! -��!-!"��#-5 � -$3># !��# ># -!�#$�-$5�#!1" 3�+3��-="$5 -��1�/ -#��-$5�" -$5�#!1" 3�7%))8�)��:�* while dealing with the issue of passing of driving test held that the criteria of selection cannot be altered by the authority concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. The decision of the High Court was accordingly set aside. Relevant observations read as under:�

¶122

“Therefore, the High Court cannot be said to be correct in holding that the Circular Order dated 24.6.1996 is illegal or arbitrary or against the orders of the State Government or the Resolution of the Board of the Transport Corporation. Instead, it would have been well open to the High Court to have declared that the criteria sought to be fixed by the Circular dated 24.6.1996 as the sole determinative of the merit or grade of a candidate for selection long after the last date fixed for receipt of application and in the middle of the course of selection process (since in this case the Driving Test was stated to have been conducted on 27.11.1995) cannot be applied to the selections under consideration and challenged before the High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the games of the rules meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered

¶123

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�16�

by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the Circular Orders dated 24.6.1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside.”

¶128

Similarly in ��/-$��-�1#! -�+3��.1��#2 !�#(��"�1��7%))98�< ����** the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the authority concerned, could not either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the viva�voce. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the appellants were held to be selected for being recommended for appointment to the post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service since they had been left out as minimum marks had been prescribed in the viva�voce after the written test was conducted. The relevant observations read as under:�

¶129

“9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive�voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive�voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive�voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive�voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional

¶130

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�17�

requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive�voce, test was illegal.”

¶135

The submission of the counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents that the State has specifically used the word 'substitute' in the notification would mean that there would be retrospective effect is of no consequence in view of the law laid down by three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in � ��+�=-0-�-,31/�

¶136

��6"��3��"B��#$! -6!# 3��#��"!6��+3��!-!"�#(��7?<A8�&��*

¶137

&<�� In the said case, the appellants who were millers, were seeking the enhanced price for milling on the ground that the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) Order, 1964 provided that the millers were to be paid at the controlled price regardless of the dates when the supplies were made on the strength of the word "substituted" in Clause 2 of the amendment order. The Hon'ble Apex Court had held that until there was an express word or appropriate language from which the principle of retrospectivity could be inferred, the notification was to take effect from the date it was issued and not from any prior date as it would open the past transactions. The said principle is fully applicable in the present case as well. The relevant observations read thus:�

¶138

“Mr. Nariman appearing on behalf of the appellants has laid great emphasis on the word "substituted" occurring in clause

¶139

2 of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964 and has urged that the claim of the

¶140

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�18�

appellants cannot be validily ignored Elaborating his submission, counsel has contended that as the prices fixed by the Government are meant for the entire season, the appellants have to be paid at the controlled price as fixed vide the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964, regardless of the dates on which the supplies were made. We cannot accede to this contention. It is no doubt true that the literal meaning of the word "substitute" is "to replace' but the question before us is from which date the substitution or replacement of the new Schedule took effect. There is no deeming clause or some such provision in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964 to indicate that it was intended to have a retrospective effect. It is a well recognized rule of interpretation that in the absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity, may be inferred, a notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. The principle is also well settled that statutes should not be construed so as to create new disability or obligations or impose new duties in respect of transactions which were complete at the time the Amending Act came into force. (See Mani Gopal Mitra v. The State of Bihar (1969) 2 SCR 411.”

¶145

The submission of the counsel for the respondents that a

¶146

¶147

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�19�

direction was also prayed for in Civil Writ Petition No.22485 of 2012 Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others for reducing the qualifying marks and such a direction was liable to be granted by the Court in view of the judgment in Anmol Bhandari's case (supra) is also without any basis as noticed by the Full Bench of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra) that no such modification can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, as noticed earlier, the persons belonging to the different reserved categories had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.20517 of 2011 Kiran and others Vs. State of Haryana and others which was disposed on 4.11.2011 directing the petitioners to approach the authorities to consider their case for relaxation. The Government took the decision with prospective effect and therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the benefit of relaxation was to be granted with retrospective effect cannot be upheld as it would unsettle the eligibility criteria which had been prescribed by the State Government. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra) no assistance can be drawn by the writ petitioners/respondents from the observations made by Delhi High Court in Anmol Bhandari's case (supra). The judgment in Shabir Khan's case (supra) pertains to the State of Punjab and is subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.771 of 2013�Mandeep Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others before this Court and it pertains to different notifications issued by the State of Punjab.

¶152

Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and the

¶153

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 569 of 2013

�20�

judgment dated 8.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.

¶158

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and since the petitioners involved herein are physically handicapped persons and one of them is suffering from physical disability of amputation of right arm whereas others are suffering from Polio of both legs having disability from 40% to 43%, if such petitioners have been given any benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the appeal and have been appointed by the State Government, it would be in the interest of justice, the same would not be disturbed. This direction is, however, being issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case more particularly only due to the physically handicap faced by the petitioners and it is not to be treated as precedent in any manner as the legal issue stands decided in favour of the appellant�Board holding the notification dated 3.10.2012 to be prospective in operation.

¶159

�� (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶160

5.7.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) Pka JUDGE

¶161

Kumar Pardeep 2013.07.23 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Board of School Education Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Board of School Education Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prithvi Raj Vs State of Haryana an D Others

Dharam Pal Vs Shamri Coop.Credit and Service Society.Ltd

Rajiv and Another Vs State of Punjab

Dr.Balwant Singh Sidhu Vs the State of Punjab & Others

Davinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others