LexPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL versus JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 3 S.C.R 1026 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL V. JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ANR. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2007) MARCH 3, 2014 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] UTTRANCHAL SUBORDINATE ENGINEERING C SERVICE (EMERGENCY DIRECT RECRUITMENT) RULES, 2001: r.5(4) - Selection for the post of Junior Engineer under the 2001 Rules - Advertisement and the 2001 Rules did not provide any weightage to be given to trained apprentices - Rules 2001 ceased to exist on 11. 11. 2002 - On D 31.7.2003, 2003 Rules framed - Rules 2003 superseded all existing Rules but Rule 5(4) of 2001 Rules was transposed by Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules - Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules provided that the marks obtained in the written examination and the marks obtained in the interview shall be increased E by 10 extra marks in case of trained apprentices - Claim by respondents-writ petitioners to make selection after giving benefit of 1 O additional marks to the candidates for completed apprenticeship - Held: All the candidates including the respondents participated in the selection process under 2001 F Rules being fully aware that no preference was given to the trained apprentices - Therefore, it cannot be said that any vested right had accrued to the trained apprentices, under the 2001 Rules - The Rules of 2003 came into force on 31. 7. 2003 and no retrospective effect was given to it - The 2003 Rules could not have the effect of amending the 2001 Rules G which had already ceased to exist in terms of Rule 6 thereof w.e.f. 11.11.2001 - It was wholly impermissible to alter the selection criteria which was advertised in 2001 - As no preference was given to the trained apprentices in 2001 H 1026 PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH 1027 CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. Rules, many eligible candidates in that category may not A have applied - Therefore, giving such preference would be clear infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Service law - Selection. CIRCULAR/GOVERNMENT ORDERS/NOTIFICATION: B Executive orders - Binding effect of - Held: The executive orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India - Such executive orders/instructions can only supplement the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. C The State of Uttranchal came into existence on 9th November, 2000. The Public Service Commission (PSCU) was established in May, 2001. On 12th November, 2001, the Uttranchal Subordinate Engineering Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2001 were framed D for filling up large number of vacancies of post of Junior Engineer which became available on creation of the State of Uttranchal. A proposal was sent by State Government on 2nd November, 2001 to PSCU for conducting a written examination. The written examination was to be E conducted by llT as the PSCU did not have the necessary infrastructure. Pursuant to issuance of advertisement on 27th November, 2001, the written examination was held by the llT on 12th January, 2002 and result of the written examination was declared on 10th July, 2003. F A notification was issued on 31st July, 2003 superseding all the existing rules and regulations of selection process in regard to direct recruitment of Junior Engineer in various departments. The candidates who had cleared written examination were called for G interview from 18th to 22nd December, 2003. In the notification dated 31st July, 2003, Rule 5(4) provided that for the purpose of selection, the marks obtained in the written examination would be added in the H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A marks obtained in the interview, but for preparing the final merit list, the candidates who had completed apprenticeship would be given extra 10 marks in addition to the marks obtained by them in the written examination and interview. However, by letter dated 29th April, 2004, s it was clarified that 1 O marks were to be added to the total marks obtained by the candidates who had completed apprenticeship, only where the direct recruit candidate and the apprentice candidate stood on equal footing. Thereafter, the selected list of the successful candidates c was prepared and forwarded to the State Government on 15th May, 2004. Aggrieved by the non-grant of additional 10 marks, large number of unsuccessful candidates in the ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.