Supreme Court orders retroactive appointment of Tehsildars with seniority placement

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the State Government to appoint the appellants to the posts of Tehsildars based on the additional list published by the Commission on 18th March 1976. The Court also directed that the appellants be appointed with retrospective effect, creating supernumerary posts if necessary, and placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976 for seniority purposes, without entitlement to back wages. The respondents' appointments were not interfered with due to the long duration of their service.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975.
2. Validity of the State Government's Order dated 23rd April 1976.
3. Applicability of the Government Orders dated 6th September 1969 and 9th July 1975.
4. Rights of candidates under the terms of the advertisement.
5. Impact of retrospective application of amended rules.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975:
The appellants challenged the validity of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975, arguing it was inconsistent with Rule 10 of the 1966 Rules and violated Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The High Court rejected these contentions, holding that the directions in the Government Order were not violative of Rule 10(2) and did not breach Article 16 of the Constitution.

2. Validity of the State Government's Order dated 23rd April 1976:
The appellants contested the State Government's Order dated 23rd April 1976, which directed the Commission to prepare a revised list of successful candidates per the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. The appellants argued that the revised list was illegal and contrary to the rules since the advertisement had been issued in May 1975, before the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. The Supreme Court found the State Government's interpretation of para 11 of its Order dated 9th July 1975 incorrect and ruled that the Commission rightly followed the mode of selection prescribed under the Government Order dated 6th September 1969.

3. Applicability of the Government Orders dated 6th September 1969 and 9th July 1975:
The Supreme Court examined which Government Order the Commission was required to follow in preparing the select list. The Court concluded that para 11 of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 saved the selections where reservations had already been made and advertisements issued before its enactment. Therefore, the Commission correctly followed the procedure under the Government Order dated 6th September 1969.

4. Rights of candidates under the terms of the advertisement:
The Court emphasized that candidates acquire a vested right to be considered for selection according to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. This right crystallizes on the date of the advertisement unless the advertisement indicates otherwise. The Court held that the appellants had a vested right to be considered for selection under the rules and orders existing at the time of the advertisement.

5. Impact of retrospective application of amended rules:
The Court reiterated that a statutory rule or Government Order is generally prospective unless explicitly or implicitly made retrospective. The Court cited precedents to support that selections should be regulated by the rules and orders in force at the time of the advertisement unless the amended rules are retrospective. The Court found that para 11 of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 indicated that the revised directions would not apply to pending selections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the State Government to appoint the appellants to the posts of Tehsildars based on the additional list published by the Commission on 18th March 1976. The Court also directed that the appellants be appointed with retrospective effect, creating supernumerary posts if necessary, and placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976 for seniority purposes, without entitlement to back wages. The respondents' appointments were not interfered with due to the long duration of their service.

---