SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Karnati Ravi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2010 With C.A. No. 898 of 2010
Decided On : 20-07-2017
Executive Instructions - Selection and Appointment - The court held that in the absence of specific rules, executive instructions can govern the procedure for selection and appointment as long as they do not conflict with the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants participated in the selection for appointment as Deputy Surveyor. The procedure for selection, including a physical endurance test, was notified by executive instructions, as it was not available under the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that in the absence of specific rules, executive instructions can provide the procedure for selection and appointment, as long as they do not conflict with the rules. The court also held that the candidates who participated in the selection without objection cannot later challenge the procedure.
Issues: The issue pertained to whether executive instructions can govern the procedure for selection and appointment in the absence of specific rules.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of specific rules, executive instructions can provide the procedure for selection and appointment, as long as they do not conflict with the rules. Candidates who participate in the selection without objection cannot later challenge the procedure.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
The issue raised in these Appeals pertains to the question whether in the matter of selection and appointment, executive instructions pertaining to the procedure of selection, which is not prescribed under the Rules can rule the field.
2. The appellants participated in the selection for appointment as Deputy Surveyor. There is no dispute that all of them possessed the qualification for the post. The procedure for selection was, however, not available under the Rules and, therefore, by executive instructions, it was notified that the participants would be subjected to a written test and also a physical endurance test.
3. It is the contention of the appellants that the physical endurance test is not a test prescribed under the Rules, unlike in the case of selection of a Police Constable where it is a prescribed procedure.
4. We are afraid this contention cannot be appreciated.
5. It may be seen that even a written examination is not a procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Rules only provide the essential qualifications for the post. The method of selection, in the absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive instructions. All the appellants have appeared in the written examination. They were also subjected to a physical endurance test which they could not qualify. It is, thereafter, the unsuccessful candidates in the physical endurance test put up a challenge regarding the validity of the executive instructions whereby physical endurance test has been prescribed.
6. As we have already noted above, in the absence of the Rules, it is well within the powers of the Executive under Article 162 of the Constitution to provide for the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection, so long as they do not come in conflict with the Rules.
7. That apart, all the candidates have participated in the selection, both in the written examination, though not a prescribed one, for which there is no objection, as also the physical endurance test. Having participated in the selection without any objection, they cannot later challenge the procedure.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these Appeals and the same are dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.