H.G. Ramesh, J.

1. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.15002/2011 & 21131- 21146/2011, 16948-16995/2010, 17294-17327/2010, 17481/2010 & 17485-17490/2010 & 17723-17727/2010, 19401/2011 & 21520-21530/2011 & 41905-41908/2010 & 6747-6758/2011 & 908-911/2011 are challenging the order dtd. 25.05.2010 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ('the Administrative Tribunal') in Application Nos.182 to 185, 187, 195, 197 to 202 of 2007, quashing the recruitment notification dtd. 18.08.2006 insofar as it relates to recruitment of Motor Vehicles Inspectors and consequently quashing all appointments of Motor Vehicles Inspectors made pursuant thereto.

2. By the aforesaid recruitment Notification, the Karnataka Public Service Commission ('the KPSC') had called for applications for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors. The Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned order, has quashed the recruitment notification and the appointments made pursuant thereto on the ground that the recruitment notification did not stipulate one of the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors namely, 'work experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop'. This is one of the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government as per the notification dtd. 19th June 1989 in exercise of the power under S.213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the M.V. Act, 1988').

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dtd.25.05.2010.

In the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel, following questions arise for determination in the writ petitions referred to above:

1. Whether the qualifications prescribed for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors by the Karnataka General Services (Motor Vehicles Branch)(Recruitment) Rules, 1976 as amended by Government of Karnataka by notification dtd. 24th November 2005 in exercise of the power under sub-sec.(1) of S.3 r/w S.8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 would override the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government by notification dtd. 19th June 1989 in exercise of the power under S.213(4) of the M.V. Act, 1988?

2. Whether the recruitment notification dtd. 18.08.2006 is illegal, as held by the Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that the qualifications stipulated in the recruitment notification for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors did not include one of the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government by notification dtd. 19th June 1989 in exercise of the power under S.213(4) of the M.V. Act, 1988?

3. Whether the qualification of work experience of one year prescribed by the Central Government is impossible of compliance?

4. Whether work experience gained by the appointees after the appointment would cure the illegality, if any, in the appointments made?

5. Whether the appointments, if illegal, could be interfered at this stage?

6. Whether the applicants before the Administrative Tribunal had locus standi to challenge the appointments in question?

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties, in support of their contentions, relied on the following decisions:

1. State of Bombay vs. F.N.Balsara (AIR (38) 1951 SC 318)

2. Zaverohai vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1954 SC 752)

3. R.M.D.C vs. Union of India (AIR 1957 SC 628)

4. State of Rajasthan vs. G.Chawla (AIR 1959 SC 544)

5. State of Orissa vs. M.A.Tulloch & Co. (AIR 1964 SC 1284)

6. D.Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka ((1977) 2 SCC 148)

7. R.S.Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Limited ((1977) 4 SCC 98)

8. Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P ((1980) 4 SCC 136)

9. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. State of Bihar ((1983) 4 SCC 45)

10. Prem Chand Jain vs. R.K.Chhabra ((1984) 2 SCC 302)

11. Om Prakash vs. Akhilesh Kumar ((1986) Supp SCC 285)

12. India Cement Ltd. vs. State of T.N ((1990) 1 SCC 12)

13. H.C.Puttaswamy vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court ((