AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (12) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appointments to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors from the select list prepared by the Commission. Since the question involved in the appeal by special level filed against the order of the State Tribunal and the writ petition are common, we consider it proper to dispose of the same by a common judgment. 2. The dispute involved in the present cases relates to the selection and appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Recruitment to the said post is regulated by the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. These Rules provide for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and it further lays down the minimum qualification requiring a candidate to be holder of Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. In 1978 the Karnataka Public Service Commission held selections and about 200 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors were filled up from amongst the candidates holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and in Automobile Engineering. On September 28, 1983 the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement (published in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hicle Inspectors. 3. Meanwhile the State Government of Karnataka amended the Recruitment Rules by a Notification dated May 4, 1987 published in the Gazette on May 14, 1987 omitting the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Consequent to the amendment of Rules the holders of Diploma in Automobile Engineering became exclusively eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and the holders in Diploma in Mechanical Engineering ceased to be eligible for selection and appointment to the said post. Some of those candidates who were unsuccessful at the selection held by the Commission preferred applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore for quashing the select list prepared by the Commission and also for quashing the Notification dated September 28, 1983 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors on the ground that after the amendment of Rules in 1987, no person holding the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was qualified for appointment, therefore fresh selection should be made in accordance with the amended Rules. The State Government of Karnataka as we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the result was published in the State Gazette on July 23, 1987. In addition to that the selected candidates were intimated by the Commission by separate letters. In view of these facts the sole question for consideration is as to whether the amendment made in the rules on May 14, 1987 rendered the selection illegal. Admittedly in the Rules do not contain any provision enforcing the amended Rules with retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rules it must be held to be prospective in nature. The Rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the right of candidate holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making appointment as well as on the date of scrutiny by the Commission they were qualified for selection and appointment. In fact the entire selection in the normal course would have been finalised much before the amendment of Rules, but for the interim orders of the High Court. If there had been no interim orders, the selected candidates would have been appointed much before the amendment of Rules. Since the process of selection had commenced and it could not be completed on account of the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rector to make appointment under Section 16-F(4) of the Act. In view for the amendment of Section 16-F(4) of the Act. In view of the amendment of Section 16-F of the Act, validity of the order of the Director of Education dated March 8, 1977 making appointment to the post of Principal was again questioned. The High Court dismissed the writ petition thereupon the unsuccessful party preferred appeal. This Court held as under (SCC pp. 36-37, para 5) "It is no doubt true that the act was amended by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 which came into force on August 18, 1975 taking away the power of the Director to make an appointment under Section 16-F(4) of the Act in the case of minority institutions. The amending Act did not, however, provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16-F of the Act. Nor do we find any words in it which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings. The process of selection under Section 16-F of the Act commencing from the stage of calling for applications for a post up to the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-F(4) (as it stood then) is an integrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 SCC 830). We have carefully considered the decision by we do not find anything therein contrary to the view taken in Calton case ((1983) 3 SCC 33 1983 SCC (L&S) 356). 8. In Ramakrishna Rao case ((1972) 4 SCC 830) the State Public Service Commission of Andhra Pradesh had invited applications in 1968 for the posts of District Munsifs. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules empowered the Commission to prepare a list of persons considered for the appointment to the posts of District Munsifs after holding such an examination as the government would consider necessary. On a challenge made by some of the candidates the High Court held that Rule 5 was void as it empowered the government to determine whether an examination was necessary or not, and also the pattern or such examination, in contravention of Article 234 of the Constitution. The High Court further held that the government orders, pursuant to the said rule for holding of examination by the Commission was also void, having been issued under invalid Rules. Pursuant to the judgment of the High Court the Governor amended Rule 5 after consultation with the High Court and the Commission as enjoined by Article 234 of the Constitution. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents as none was acquired by them. Equally, there was no question of the amended Rule 5, being prospective or retrospective as the Commission had to act afresh under the amended rule, the unamended rule having been struck down and there being, therefore, no basis on which the applications of the respondents made in 1968 could be treated as valid applications." 9. The above observations as relied by the Tribunal do not apply to the facts of the instant case as the advertisement issued by the Commission on September 28, 1983 was in accordance with the Recruitment Rule of 1976, validity of those Rules was not in question. The rule prescribing qualification was amended after four years of the advertisement, therefore the laying laid down in Ramakrishna Rao case ((1972) 4 SCC 830) does not apply. The Tribunal committed error in ignoring the law laid down in Calton case ((1983) 3 SCC 33 1983 SCC (L&S) 356) by placing reliance on the observations of this Court in Ramakrishna Rao case ((1972) 4 SCC 830). In our view the principles laid down in Calton case ((1983) 3 SCC 33 1983 SCC (L&S) 356) are fully applicable to the instant case. 10. In Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Engineers from the purview of the Public Service Commission. The government regularised the services of all those who were appointed by direct recruitment to the post of ad-hoc Junior Engineers and were continuing in service on August 9, 1979 without subjecting them to any test written or oral. The candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission challenged validity of the government order excluding the post of Junior Engineers from the purview of the Commission and also the validity of the decision by the government to regularise the services of temporary employees. Before this Court the government's power of framing regulations excluding any post from the purview of the Commission under that proviso to Article 320(3) was conceded. It was however, urged that since the advertisement had been issued by the Commission inviting applications for the posts of Junior Engineers and as the Commission was in process of selecting candidates the power under the proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution could not be exercised. This court rejected the contention with the following observations (SCC p. 344, para 4) "The only conten....