N.T. BEVIN KATTI ETC. versus KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 30-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

N.T. BEVIN KATTI ETC. 
v. 
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND 01\S. 
MARCH 30, 1990 
.... 
[K.N. SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Karnataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars) Recruitment 
Special Rules, 1975: Preparation of select list for appointment of 
Tehsildars-Service Commission-Whether to follow Government 
~ Order dated September 6, 1969 or July, 9, 1975. 
The Karnataka Public Service Commission issued a notification 
on 23rd May 1975 inviting applications from in-service candidates for 
recruitment to SO posts of Tehsildars. In para 14 of the notification it 
A 
B 
c 
was stated that provisions of 1975 Rules, and Rules 7 to 14 of the 
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I & II posts 
Appointment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1966 shall mutatis 
0 
mutandis apply to the conduct of the competitive Examination and the 
provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) 
Rules, 1957 shall apply in respect of matters for which no provision is 
made in the Rules. 
In preparing the select list and making reservations to the various 
E 
categories, the Commission followed the directions and the procedure 
as contained in Government Order dated 6th September 1969. The 
State Government refused to approve the list and directed the Commis-
sion on 23.4. 76 to prepare the list afresh following the Government 
Order dated 7th July 1975. The Commission thereupon prepared the 
list afresh as per Government Order of 7th July 1975. In the revised 
F 
list, the appellants names did not figure. 
The appellants challenged the validity of the Governm~nt Order 
dated 23rd April 1976 as well as the revised list and the validity of the 
Government Order dated 9th July 1975 by means of writ petitions 
before the High Court on a number of grounds. The appellants con-
G 
tended that the Government Order dated 7th July 1975 prescribing 
mode of preparing the select list by making resen:ations for various 
categories was inconsistent with the statutory Rule 10 of 1966 Rules, 
and further the directions contained therein were violative of Articles 
16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution oflndia. 
239 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
The High Court rejected both the contentions holding that the 
directions contained in Government Order of 9th July 1975 were not 
violative of Rule 10(2) and there was no violation of Article 16 of the 
Constitution. The High Court also upheld the Government Order dated 
23.4. 76 directing the Commission to prepare the select list afresh in 
accordanre with the mode prescribelJ vide Government Order of 9th 
July 1975. 
In this Court, the appellants did not nursue their challenge to the 
validity of the Government Order dated 9. 7. 75 but they assailed the 
validity of Government Order dated 23.4. 76 wherein the Government 
directed the Commission to prepare a revised list in accordance with the 
Government Order dated 9. 7. 75 on the ground that the Government 
Order was not applicable to the pending selection. 
The appellants also urged that the mode of selection and proce-
dure for making reservations as prescribed by Government Order of 
9th July 1975 was not applicable to the selection as advertisement had 
been issued in May 1975 and the process of selection had already com-
menced prior to the issue of Government Order dated 9th July 1975, 
and that the revised list of successful candidates prepared by the 
commission as per Government directions of 23.4. 76 was illegal and 
contrary to the Rules. 
On behalf of the Respondents it was submitted that the list of 
successful candidates had been prepared in accordance with Govern-
ment Order dated 9th .July 1975, the State Government was justified in 
insisting upon the Commission to prepare the list afresh in accordance 
with the directions contained in the aforesaid order. 
F 
Allowing the Appeals· and setting aside the Order of the High 
Court, 
HELD: (1) Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for 
direct recruitment to a category of posts and the advertisement ex-
pressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the exist-
G 
ing rules or Government Orders and if it further indicated the extent of 
reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates 
in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules 
and Government Orders if any. 
(2) Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not primarily 
H 
depends up

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