KARNATI RAVI& ANR. versus COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 20-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 507 
KARNATI RAVI& ANR. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND 
RECORDS & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 897 of 20 I 0) 
JULY20,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service law - Selection - Executive instructions - Whether 
A 
B 
in the matter of selection and appointment, executive instructions 
C 
pertaining to the procedure of selection, which is not prescribed 
under the Rules can rule the field - Held: The method of selection, 
in the absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive 
instructions - In the absence of the Rules, it is well within the 
powers of the Executive u/Art.162 of the Constitution to provide for 
the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection, 
D 
so long as they do not come in conflict with the Rules - That apart, 
in the instant case, all the candidates participated in the selection, 
both in the written examination,, though not a prescribed one, for 
which there was no objection, as also the physical endurance test -
Having participated in the se(ection without any objection, they 
E 
cannot later challenge the procedure - Constitution of India -
Art.162. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : In the instant case, even a written examination 
was not a procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Rules only 
F 
provided the essential qualifications for the post. All 
the appellants appeared in the written examination. They were 
also subjected to a physical endurance test which they could not 
qualify. It was, thereafter, the unsuccessful candidates in the 
physical endurance test put up a challenge regarding the validity 
G 
of the executive instructions whereby physical endurance test 
was prescribed. 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 
H 
507 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A Rules. That apart, all the candi.dates participated in the selection, 
both in the written examination, though not a prescribed one, for 
which there was no objection, as also the physical endurance test. 
Having participated in the selection without any objection, they 
cannot later challenge the procedure. [Paras 5-7] [508-G-H; 
B 
509-~-C] 
CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 897 
of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition 
c No. 15265 of2006 
WITH 
C. A. No. 898 of 2010. 
C. S. N. Mohan Rao, D. Mahesh Babu, Advs. for the Appellants. 
D 
S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, M/s. Venkat Pi,ilwai 
Law Associates, Advs. for the Respondents. 
E 
F 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. 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 
H 
absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive instructions. All 
KARNATI RAVI & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER SURVEY 
509 
SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.[KURIAN, J.J 
the appellants have appeared in the written examination. They were 
A 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.