Case Law Details
Jibon Kalita Vs State of Assam (Guwahati High Court)
The petitioners were selected as Gaonburahs and police verification had also been completed on 25.11.2016. Title Suit No.7/2016 and Title Suit No.8/2016 were disposed of on 14.08.2017 and as such there was no bar on the part of the State respondents in issuing appointment orders to the petitioners from 15.08.2017 onwards. The respondents could have issued appointment orders in the year 2017, as the amendment to the Executive Instructions was made only on 10.04.2018.
In the case of Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr.-Vs- State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 724, the Apex Court had held that once advertisements have been issued on the basis of a circular operating at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which were laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria, which has been made subsequently.
In the case of Assam Public Service Commission & Ors. -Vs-Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Ors., reported in 2019 (17) Scale 542, the Apex Court had held that the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the APSC on 21.12.2018 must necessarily be conducted under the selection norms as applicable on the date of the advertisement.
In the case of A. Calton -Vs- Director of Education & Anr., reported in (1983) 3 SCC 33, the Apex Court had held that though the Legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognized constitutional limitations, it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have retrospective effect.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
