A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, HYDERABAD & ANR. versus B. SARAT CHANDRA & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 10-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

_).. 
A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, HYDERABAD 
& ANR;-
--- -----
A 
v. 
-----~-
B. SARAT CHANDRA & ORS.-
· APRIL 10, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) 
.. 
Civil Services: A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966: Rule 5-Kecruit-
ment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police-Eligibility for-
Fixation of minimum age of 21 years as on first day of July of the yearof 
selection-Validity of. 
. Rule S of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 makes a person 
ineligible for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police unless he 
has completed the age of 21 years on the first day of July of the year in 
which the selection is made. 
The appellant Service Commission notified on-August 25, 1983 a · 
combined examination for Grade I Services of the State, to be held in · 
November, 1983 wherein the minimum age prescribed for selection to 
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1,-
1983 as against 18 years for other posts. 
, 
The respondeJlt who was 19 days short of 21 years as on July I, 
1983 was not considered for appointment to the post or Deputy 
Superintendent of Police. He was, however, selected as Deputy Regis-
trar of Cooperative Societies. He filed a petition before the State 
Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the appellant to select 
him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, rontending that the 
date for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the notification 
was contrary to Rule S of the Police Service Rules in as much as it ought 
to be the date of preparation of the list of selected candidates and not 
any date anterior to it. The Tribunal accepted that Contention. 
B 
•C 
D 
E 
F 
· Allowing the appeal by the Service Commission, the Court, 
G 
HELD: The word 'selectioi:i' occurring in Rule S of the A.P. Police. 
Service Rules, 1966 cannot be construed only as the factum of prepara-
tion of the selecUist. [467B) 
----
The process of selection which begins with the issuance of 
H 
463 
A 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
advertisement and continues through scrutiny of applications, rejection 
of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, con· 
ducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce, ends with 
preparation of the select list for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Public Service Commission is. also indicative of all 
these steps. When such were the different su;ps in the process of selec-
B 
!ion, the minimum or maximum age for .suitability of a candidate for 
appointment cannot be allowed to ·depend upon any fluctuating or 
uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed, and more otlen 
it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the 
date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage 
for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum 
c 
D 
age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular 
date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise 
applications. [466F -467 A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1147 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1989 of the A.P. 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petition No. 
3843 of 1989. 
T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Manjula Gupta for 
E 
the Appellants. 
F 
G 
K. Madhava Reddy, D.R.K. Reddy, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwar 
Rao and Mudu Vijai for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This is an appeal by the A.P. 
Public Service Commission against the decision of the A.P. 
__. 
Administrative Tribunal dated September 22, 1989. The appeal raises 
a question as to the scope of Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 
1966. 
The facts are not in dispute·and may be stated as follows: The 
Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement/Notification No .. 
18/1983 inviting applications for selection in a Combined Competitive 
~ 
Examination to be held in November, 1983 at Anantapur, Guntur, 
Hyderabad, Kakinalla, Tirupathi, Visakhapatnarn and Warangal 
H Centres for recruitment to the posts included in Grade-I Services. The 
' 
•
.. 
·----......._ 
, 
r 
A.P. P.S.C. v. B.S. CHANDRA [SHEITY, J.] 
465 
/ 
Notification was published in the Gazette dated August 25, 1983. The 
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was one of the posts for which 
applications were invited. The respondent applied to that post as well 
as to other posts. The m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.