- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
South Central Railwa... v. B. Yashodabai And Ot...
Factual and Procedural Background
South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society (“the Society”) had service rules approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh. Promotions were earlier granted on the basis of caste-based reservation. In South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580, the Supreme Court held that no reservation policy applied to promotions within the Society and that promotions granted on that basis were illegal.
Pursuant to the 1998 Supreme Court judgment, the Society issued reversion orders on 12-06-1998 to employees who had been promoted under the invalid reservation policy. Affected employees challenged the order through Writ Petition No. 17756 of 1998; a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the reversion order on 06-08-1998. Other employees, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, filed Writ Appeal No. 1638 of 1998, which the Division Bench dismissed on 14-08-2002.
The Employees' Union now appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the Division Bench judgment reported as 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in quashing the Society’s reversion order despite the binding Supreme Court decision in (1998) 2 SCC 580.
- Whether the High Court could treat the earlier Supreme Court judgment as per incuriam and re-examine factors allegedly not considered by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Union's Arguments
- The High Court impermissibly reconsidered an issue conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in (1998) 2 SCC 580.
- A judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be declared per incuriam by a High Court; Article 141 mandates obedience.
- Reliance was placed on State of Goa v. A.H Jaffar and Sons (2008) 11 SCC 18 and Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420 to emphasise that subordinate courts cannot depart from Supreme Court precedents.
- The different view adopted by the High Court is therefore illegal and the appeal should be allowed.
Respondent Employees' Arguments
- The High Court correctly considered relevant factors allegedly ignored by the Supreme Court in the 1998 decision.
- Because additional considerations justified the original promotions, the High Court’s judgment was proper and the appeal should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies, (1998) 2 SCC 580 | No reservation policy applies to promotions within the Society; binding precedent under Article 141. | Treated as final and conclusive; High Court’s failure to follow it was a grave error. |
| State of Goa v. A.H Jaffar and Sons, (2008) 11 SCC 18 | Lower courts must adhere to Supreme Court rulings; judgments are not to be treated as per incuriam by subordinate courts. | Cited by appellant; reinforced Supreme Court’s view that High Court lacked authority to deviate from precedent. |
| Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420 | Reiterates binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on all subordinate courts. | Supported the Court’s conclusion that the High Court acted contrary to settled law. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the earlier 1998 judgment, the Society’s unchanged promotion rules, the rejected review petition against that judgment, and the impugned High Court decisions. It held that:
- The 1998 Supreme Court ruling had attained finality; no subsequent amendment to the promotion rules existed.
- The High Court could not disregard or declare a Supreme Court judgment per incuriam; doing so violates Article 141 and undermines legal certainty.
- Allowing subordinate courts to revisit settled Supreme Court rulings would create “total chaos” and nullify the doctrine of stare decisis.
- The High Court effectively nullified a decree in execution proceedings by invalidating the Society’s reversion order, an act beyond its jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Supreme Court found the Single Judge and Division Bench decisions legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE.
The Society’s reversion order dated 12-06-1998 stands restored, and no costs were awarded. The ruling reinforces the binding effect of Supreme Court precedent on all lower courts and affirms that High Courts cannot bypass or label Supreme Court decisions as per incuriam. No new doctrine was created, but the decision strengthens adherence to Article 141 and the principle of finality in judicial hierarchy.
Anil R. Dave, J.— Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748, (2002) 5 ALD 687 on 14-8-2002, this appeal has been preferred by South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees' Union.
2. It is necessary to know the circumstances which gave rise to the present litigation, which has put the employees of the appellant Union to undue hardship and long-drawn litigation.
3. South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”), had framed rules governing service conditions of its employees and the said rules had been approved by the Registrar of Coop. Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This Court, in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580, had decided that there was no reservation policy for the employees of the Society in the matter of promotion to higher cadre. The said decision had been taken by this Court for the reason that there was a dispute whether the policy of reservation was to be followed only at the stage of recruitment of the employees or it was also to be followed in the matter of giving promotion to the higher cadre. After considering all the relevant factors and relevant rules and regulations, this Court had come to a specific conclusion that there was no provision with regard to giving benefit of reservation of any kind to the employees of the Society in the matter of their promotion. The said issue had arisen initially for the reason that even in the matter of promotion, the policy with regard to reservation had been followed by the Society and some promotions were given on the basis of reservation policy and the said policy was challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and ultimately in the said proceedings, this Court had finally come to a conclusion in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 that in the matter of promotion, policy of reservation was not to be followed and as a consequence thereof, the persons who had been wrongly promoted on the basis of the reservation policy had to be reverted.
4. In the aforestated circumstances, so as to correct the mistake which had been committed by the Society and to give effect to the judgment (1998) 2 SCC 580 delivered in the aforestated appeal, the Society had issued orders of reversion to the employees who had been wrongly promoted. One such order dated 12-6-1998 was served upon the employees concerned, who had been wrongly promoted on the basis of their caste and creed. The said order dated 12-6-1998 was challenged by them by filing Writ Petition No. 17756 of 1998 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is really very strange that the writ petition challenging the aforestated order dated 12-6-1998 was allowed and the aforestated order was quashed and set aside by the High Court on 6-8-1998 1998 SCC OnLine AP 399, (1998) 5 ALD 485.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, Writ Appeal No. 1638 of 1998 had been filed by the other employees of the Society who had been aggrieved by the wrongful promotions given by the Society on the basis of the reservation policy. The said writ appeal had also been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 14-8-2002 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748, (2002) 5 ALD 687.
6. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant employees who are aggrieved by the judgment delivered in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748, (2002) 5 ALD 687.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Employees' Union had submitted before this Court that the High Court had committed a grave error by reconsidering the issue which had already been decided by this Court. Once this Court had decided in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 that the employees of the Society were not entitled to promotion on the basis of any reservation policy, the High Court could not have come to a different conclusion, when the judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 was sought to be implemented by issuance of an order dated 12-6-1998 and the High Court had committed a grave error by setting aside the said order dated 12-6-1998.
8. The learned counsel had further submitted that once this Court decides an issue by taking a particular decision, it cannot be said that the judgment delivered by this Court is per incuriam or this Court had not considered all the relevant factors while delivering the said judgment. So as to substantiate the aforestated submission, the learned counsel had relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court in State of Goa v. A.H Jaffar and Sons (2008) 11 SCC 18 and Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420.
9. It had been finally submitted that the different view taken by the High Court is absolutely improper and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the employees, who had taken advantage of the reservation policy and had got promotion to the higher cadre, submitted that the High Court had rightly considered all relevant factors which had not been considered by the Supreme Court. According to him, certain important and relevant factors had been ignored by this Court while delivering the judgment in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580. According to him, as the High Court had considered all the other relevant factors, which this Court had not considered, the judgment delivered by the High Court was just and proper and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
11. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also considered the submissions made, the judgments relied upon by the counsel, the earlier judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 and the impugned judgment 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748, (2002) 5 ALD 687. In our opinion, the High Court has committed a grave error by taking a different view than the one which had been taken by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580, especially when the rules governing the promotion policy had not been amended after the aforestated judgment was delivered by this Court. It is pertinent to note that a review application had been filed in the aforestated South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 and the same had been rejected Review Petition (C) No. 1292 of 1998 and therefore, the judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 had become final.
12. Once in pursuance of a judgment delivered by this Court orders had been issued by the Society to its employees who had been wrongly promoted, the High Court could not have held that the orders were not valid because there were certain other factors which had made the promotions given to the employees concerned valid.
13. In our opinion, the High Court should not have considered any other factor especially when this Court had come to a final conclusion that the policy with regard to reservation in the matter of promotion to the employees was not legal and proper.
14. We are of the view that it was not open to the High Court to hold that the judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580 was per incuriam.
15. If the view taken by the High Court is accepted, in our opinion, there would be total chaos in this country because in that case there would be no finality to any order passed by this Court. When a higher court has rendered a particular decision, the said decision must be followed by a subordinate or lower court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set aside. The High Court had considered several provisions which, in its opinion, had not been considered or argued before this Court when CA No. 4343 of 1988 was decided (1998) 2 SCC 580. If the litigants or lawyers are permitted to argue that something what was correct, but was not argued earlier before the higher court and on that ground if the courts below are permitted to take a different view in a matter, possibly the entire law in relation to the precedents and ratio decidendi will have to be rewritten and, in our opinion, that cannot be done. Moreover, by not following the law laid down by this Court, the High Court or the subordinate courts would also be violating the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
16. We do not want to go into the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents before the High Court for the simple reason that it was not open to them to advance any argument which would run contrary to the judgment delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580. In our opinion, the High Court did something which would be like setting aside a decree in the execution proceedings.
17*. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge 1998 SCC OnLine AP 399, (1998) 5 ALD 485 as well as the Division Bench 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748, (2002) 5 ALD 687 of the High Court committed a serious error in law by not following the judgment delivered by this Court and by quashing and setting aside the order dated 12-6-1998, which had been issued to the employees concerned so as to give effect to the judgment dated 13-1-1998 delivered by this Court in South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies (1998) 2 SCC 580.
18. The impugned judgment 2002 SCC OnLine AP 748, (2002) 5 ALD 687 delivered by the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Alert