SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 200

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
N. T. Bevin Katti, etc., Appellants
Versus
Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 2270-73 of 1987 with Civil Appeal No. 1713 of 1990 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6195 of 1979), D/- 30-3-1990.

Advocates:
M.VIRAPPA, P.P.Rao, S.R.Bhatt

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class 1 and 11 Posts Appointment by Competitive Examination) Rules 1966 - Rules 7 to 14 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - State of Karnataka recruitment to posts of Tehsildars is regulated by Rules 1975 - Karnataka Public Service Commission - Notification – Cast category - Posts of Tehsildars - Validity of revised select list – Challenged - Inviting applications from in service candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Tehsildars - Paragraph 3 of Notification specified details of posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes including 10% of posts set apart for Ex-Military Personnel - According to figures specified, therein, out of 50 pots of Tehsildars, 5 pots were reserved for Ex Military Personnel, 7 posts for Scheduled Castes, 1 post for Scheduled Tribes and 13 posts for other Backward classes - Held, Court opinion that select list including additional list as prepared by Commission and published in March 1976 was legal and valid and State Government wrongly refused to approve same - State Governments Older directing Commission to prepare fresh list in accordance with mode of selection as contained in Annexure 2 to Government Order was illegal, consequently select list prepared afresh by Commission pursuant to directions of State Government is not sustainable in law - Since additional list prepared by Commission contained names of appellants, they were entitled to appointment to posts of Tehsildars - It would be expedient in interest of justice not to interfere with respondents appointment but at same time steps should be taken to enforce appellants right to posts of Tehsildars - In this view, we direct State Government to appoint appellants on posts of Tehsildars with retrospective effect, but if no vacancies are available State Government will create supernumerary posts of Tehsildars for appointing appellants against those Posts – Hence purposes of seniority appellants should be placed below last candidate appointed in l976 but they will not be entitled to any backwage - Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points
  • The appeals challenge the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 questioning the validity of a revised select list for Tehsildars posts prepared by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. [1000223720001][1000223720002]
  • Recruitment to 50 Tehsildars posts was governed by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars) Recruitment (Special) Rules 1975, with a notification issued on May 23, 1975 (published May 29, 1975) specifying reservations: 5 for Ex-Military Personnel, 7 for Scheduled Castes, 1 for Scheduled Tribes, and 13 for other Backward Classes. [1000223720002]
  • The notification applied Rules 7-14 of the 1966 Rules and 1957 Rules where applicable, and stated reserved vacancies would be filled per rules if insufficient candidates. [1000223720002]
  • The Commission published a select list and additional list on March 18, 1976 (noted as 1975 in some places), following the Government Order dated September 6, 1969; appellants were in the additional list. [1000223720002]
  • State Government rejected the list, directing a fresh one per Government Order dated July 9, 1975, leading to a revised list on May 27, 1976 excluding appellants. [1000223720002]
  • Rule 10 of 1966 Rules (applicable via 1975 Rules) mandates reservations per government orders, with reserved candidates considered by merit order irrespective of general rank, and unfilled reserved vacancies going to merit list. (!) (!) (!)
  • 1969 Government Order set reservations at 15% SC, 3% ST, 30% OBC and prescribed procedure in Annexure 2, which Commission followed. [1000223720005] (!)
  • 1975 Government Order (July 9) revised percentages and mode in Annexure 2, superseding priors but Para 11 saved reservations already made and advertised before its issue. [1000223720006] (!)
  • State Government's April 23, 1976 order misinterpreted Para 11, applying new mode despite advertisement predating July 9, 1975; original list was valid. [1000223720007][1000223720008][1000223720009] (!)
  • Candidates acquire vested right to selection per rules and reservations in advertisement at time of publication; changes during process do not apply unless retrospective. [1000223720010]
  • Original select list and additional list valid; revised list illegal; appellants entitled to Tehsildars appointment. [1000223720013]
  • To balance equities, appellants appointed retrospectively (supernumerary posts if needed), placed below 1976 appointees for seniority, no backwages, entitled to future promotion if suitable; no interference with existing appointees. [1000223720014]
  • Appeals allowed, parties bear costs. [1000223720014] (!) (!)

Judgment

SINGH, J. - Special leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated August 11, 1978 dismissing the appellants writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging validity of the revised select list  prepared by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for appointment to the posts of Tehsildars.

3. In the State of Karnataka recruitment to the posts of Tehsildars is regulated by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars) Recruitment (Special) Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules). The Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued a Notification on May 23, 1975 (published on May 29, 1975) inviting applications from in service candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Tehsildars. Paragraph 3 of the Notification specified details of the posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes including 10% of posts set apart for Ex-Military Personnel. According to the figures specified, therein, out of 50 pots of Tehsildars, 5 pots were reserved for Ex Military Personnel, 7 posts for Scheduled Castes, 1 post for Scheduled Tribes and 13 posts for other Backward classes. Paragraph 3 of the advertisement stated that in the event of non-availability of sufficient number of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes or Ex-Military Personnel, for filling up the reserved vacancies, such vacancies shall be filled up as per Rules in force. The Notification further gave details of the written ,and viva voce examinations. Para 14 of the Notification stated that the provisions of 1975 Rules and Rules 7 to 14 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class 1 and 11 Posts Appointment by Competitive Examination) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 1966 Rules), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the conduct of the competitive examination and the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 1957 Rules) shall apply in respect of matters for which no provision is made in the Rules. Pursuant to the advertisement, the appellants who were in service of the State Government applied for their selection and appointment to the posts of Tehsildars. After the written examination and viva voce test the Commission finalised the list of successful candidates and published the same in the Karnataka Gazette dated March 18, 1975. The Commission also notified an additional list of successful candidates for appointment to the posts of Telisildars in accordance with 1975 Rules, which included the names of the appellants. In preparing the select list and making reservation to the various categories, the Commission followed the directions and the procedure as contained in the Government Order dated 6th September 1959. The State Government refused to approve the list prepared by the Commission as in its opinion the reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes would have been made in accordance with the directions and procedure contained in the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. The State Government by its order dated 23rd April 1976 directed the Commission to prepare a fresh list of successful candidates by making reservations in accordance With the procedure contained in the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. Pursuant to the directions of the State Government the Commission prepared the select list afresh, after making reservations in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Government Order dated 9th July 1875, and published the same on 27th May 1976. The appellants names did not figure in the revised list of candidates. The appellants challenged validity of the Government Order dated 23rd April 1976 as well as the revised list prepared by the Commission and also the validity of the Government

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top