( Supreme Court )
In a recent instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a court's pronouncement of law will take effect retroactively if it is not expressed explicitly.
The inter-se seniority for Munsiffs appointed through direct recruitment on the recommendation of the State Public Service Commission is to be determined on the basis of their inter-se merit at the time of selection rather than roster points, Justice Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala bench stated while upholding the order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
The court further noted that the ruling in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604, which ruled that the ruling in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana, (1995) 5 SCC 625, was retrospective and not an example of sound legal reasoning, was not a precedent-setting decision.
According to article 16 (4) of the Indian constitution, those who are economically or socially disadvantaged are given representation. Article 16 also affects hiring decisions; nevertheless, it makes no mention of seniority-based hiring practices.
Roster points are therefore not predetermined according to seniority. Affirmative action will be extended if that happens, which is expressly against the constitution's provisions. Our opinion is that the P.S. Ghalaut judgment does not provide a good legal precedent.
The court referenced the decision of P.V. George v. the State of Kerala, (2007) 3 SCC 557, in which it was stated that the law would apply retroactively unless it was specifically overturned by the court.