Pending recruitment must follow rules in force on the advertisement date; later government order could not invalidate the original select list.

A recruitment process initiated by advertisement remained governed by the rules and Government orders in force on that date, because the later Government Order of 9 July 1975 was not retrospective and its saving clause preserved pending selections. The revised select list prepared under the later order was therefore invalid, and the State could not displace the original list by a fresh administrative direction. Candidates whose names appeared in the original additional select list were entitled to appointment, with consequential relief, but without back wages and with appropriate seniority placement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government Order dated 9 July 1975 applied to a selection process already initiated by advertisement and, therefore, whether the revised select list prepared under that order was valid; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to appointment on the basis of the original select list prepared under the earlier Government Order dated 6 September 1969.

Issue (i): Whether the Government Order dated 9 July 1975 applied to a selection process already initiated by advertisement and, therefore, whether the revised select list prepared under that order was valid.

Analysis: The recruitment was governed by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars) Recruitment (Special) Rules, 1975, which made the reservation and selection provisions in the earlier recruitment rules applicable to the process. The Government Order dated 9 July 1975 expressly superseded earlier orders but contained a saving clause preserving reservations already made for posts or services advertised before its issue. The advertisement had already been issued and the selection was pending when the later order came into force. The saving clause therefore protected the pending selection, and the amended mode of selection could not be applied retrospectively to disturb the process already set in motion. The later administrative direction requiring a fresh list conflicted with the statutory character of the saving clause and could not override it.

Conclusion: The Government Order dated 9 July 1975 did not govern the pending selection, and the revised select list prepared under that order was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to appointment on the basis of the original select list prepared under the earlier Government Order dated 6 September 1969.

Analysis: The original select list and the additional list were prepared in accordance with the rules and Government orders in force on the date of advertisement. A candidate who applies pursuant to an advertisement acquires a right to be considered under the terms then prevailing, though not a vested right to selection. Since the amended order was not retrospective and the pending selection was saved by the later order itself, the original list remained legally valid. The State Government was not entitled to direct preparation of a fresh list on the basis of the later procedure, and the appellants, whose names appeared in the additional list, were wrongly denied appointment.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to be appointed on the basis of the original additional select list.

Final Conclusion: The pending recruitment had to be completed under the earlier governing instructions, the fresh select list was unsustainable, and the appellants were entitled to consequential appointment relief without back wages, with suitable seniority placement.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless a later recruitment rule or government order is expressly or by necessary implication retrospective, a selection process initiated by advertisement must be governed by the rules and instructions in force on the date of advertisement, and an express saving clause preserves pending selections from being displaced by the later regime.

---