P. MAHENDRAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 05-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

P. MAHENDRAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
DECEMBER 5, 1989 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, CJ, K.N. SINGH AND 
B 
N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles 
Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1962: Motor Vehicle Inspectors-Recruit-
ment for-State Public Service Commission processes applications-
H olds interviews_:_Rules amended before select list finalised-Effect 
C 
of-Select list-Validity of. 
The Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) 
Recruitment Roles, 1962 (as amended in 1976) laid down the minimum 
qualification of Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical 
Engineering for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle 
D 
Inspectors. The Karnataka Pnblic Service Commission issued an 
advertisement on September 28, 1983 inviting applications for the said post 
stating specifically that the selection shall be made in accordance with 
the Recruitment Rules, 1976 and that the candidate must be holder of 
Diploma in Antomobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. Aller 
scrutiny of the applications the Commission issued letters fof interview 
E 
.> 
to the suitable candidates and commenced the holding of interviews in 
August, 1984. The process of selection, however, could be completed 
only on June 2, 1987 en account of interim orders issued by the High 
Court at tlie instance of candidates seeking reservation for local candi-
dates. The result was declared on June 22, 1987 and published in the 
Karnataka Gazette dated 23rd July, 1987. Thereafter, the selected 
F 
candidates were given , intimation of their selection and the State 
Government took steps for imparting them three months training 
before appointing them as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. 
In the meanwhile, the State Government amended the Recruit-
ment Rules by a notification dated May 4, 1987 omitting qualification of 
G 
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering for the said post. Thereupon some 
of the candidates who were unsuccessful at the selection preferred 
applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for quash-
ing the select list and, the notification dated September 28, 1983 iIJviting 
applications on the ground that after the amendment of Rules in 1987 
no person holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was qualified for 
H 
385 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
appointment to the said post. The State Government as well as the 
appellants both contested the applications and asserted that the 1987 
amendment to the Recruitment Rules was not retrospective and that the 
amended rules did not affect the selections which were in the process of 
finalisation by the Commission. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Allowing the applications, the Tribunal held that after the amend-
ment of the Recruitment Rules in May 1987 the Commission could not 
make selection or determine the result on the basis of the Rules which 
existed prior to May 14, 1987 and as such the selection of candidates 
holding_ Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was illegal as they had 
ceased to be eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle 
Inspectors with effect from the date of publication of the amending 
Rules. Consequently it quashed the advertisement issued under the 
Notification dated September 28, 1983 as well as the select list published 
by the Commission and directed the Commission to invite fresh applica-
tions and to make selections in accordance with the amended Rules. 
Allowing the appeal and the writ petition preferred by the selected 
candidates, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal was in error in settinng aside the select 
list preferred by the Commission. [397H] 
2.1 If a candidate applies for a post in response to an advertise-
ment .issued by a Public Service Commission in accordance with the 
recruitment rules, he acquires a right to be considered for selection in 
accordance with the then existing rules. This right cannot be affected by 
amendment of any rule unless the amending rule is retrospective in 
nature. 13970] 
In the instant case, the advertisement issued by the Commission 
on September 28, 1983 was in .accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 
1976 under which the appellants were eligible for appointment. The 
process of selection which had commenced on receipt of the applica-
tions, however could not be completed on account of the interim orders 
G 
issued by the High Court. The select list was finalised by June 2, 1987 
and the result published in the Karnataka Gazette of July 23, 1987. 
The se

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