LexR. N. NANJUNDAPPA versus T. THIMMIAH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 799 R. N. NANJUNDAPPA v. T. THIMMIAH & ANR. December 8, 1971 [A. N .. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.) Civil Service-State Rules providing for 'methods' of recruitment by prct11olion, selection, or co1npeti1ive examination-Appointment of Ciass Ill Officer to Clc.ss I post, i11 the absence of 'rules' of recruitment- Vali.lity-lf could be treated as appointment of 'local candidate'. Constitution of India, 1950, A.rts. 14, 16, 162 and 309-Appointment ij violaJive of Ari.. 14 and 16-Scope of Arts. 162 and 309. In 1957, the respondent, who was working as an Assistant Geologiat in Class III Service, was sent on deputation as Vice-Principal of. the School of Min~s, in the State From 15th February, 1958, he was also doing the duties of the Principal. In September, 1958, the State Govem- n.,nt appointed him as officiating Principal but on 3rd April 1959 modi· lied the order and appointed him as temporary Officiating Principal with effect from the 15th February, 1958. On 9th January, 1967, the Mysore Education Department Service Rules were published by which appoint- ment of the r.espondent, with effect from 15th February, 1958 was regu- larised. The appellant, who was the Principal of a Government Poly- t<elmic. and was in Class 11 Service. contended that the respondent's appointment was in breach of the Mysore State Civil Ser.ices (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, and the Mysore Education Department Services (Technical Education Depart°"m Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and offended Arts. \~ and 16 of the Constitution. - The High Court held that the respondent was a local candidate within th<! me-.ining of the Mysore Governn1ent Senioritv Rules, 1957, and there- fore his appointment could be regularised with effect from any date. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD: (l) Ru1" 3 of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, which were in force from February l, 1958, speaks of the method of recruitment to the State Civil Service by com- p!titive examination, or by selection, or by promotion. The respondent's appointment was not by competitive examination nor was it a case or direct recruitment either in the year 1958 or at any time. If it were a case of direct recruitment there would have been advertisements for the pust. anJ candidati.s would have been selected on merit. '[808. E-H] (C.I The appointment of the respondent could not be said to be by promotion because, under r. 4 of the 1957 Rules, it should be on the basis of n1erit and suitability or on the basis of seniority-<"uni-merit from among persons eligible for promotion. Moreover, the State contended that it was not a c\lse of promotion. but was a case of selection .on the basis that the respondent was the only person .fit for tee post. (806 E.-G; 811 C-D] I 3) It is true that the rules of recruitment were not made until 1964. Ev.a so the three methods of recruitment are specific. If it is a case of selection it should have been after consulting the Public Service COmmis- 'ion or the Advisory or Selection Committee, or the appointing authority, and should have been made after inviting amilications. 'ro ~ay Iha! the 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] 2 S C.R. appellant was the only eligible candidate, is to deny the rights of others to apply. [805 F; 808 E-H] (4) Rule 16 of the 1957 rules provides for relaxation of rules relat- ing to appointment and qualifications, and orie of the instances of relaxa- tion is when the Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, appoints an officer holding a post of equivalent grade by transfer from any other service of the State. But, in the present case, the respondem did not beJong to a grade which could be said· to be equivalent, within the moaning of r. 8 ( 1) 9f the Rules, to that of the Principal of School of Mines. Therefore, it could not be a case of transfer. Jn fact, the rule was neither available, nor acted on the pr'5ent case. [806 G-H; 807 A-CJ (5) The State Government has no power to make a rule for regularis- ing an appointment under Art. 309 of the Constitution, since the Article speaks of rul_es for appointment and general conditions of service. Regu- lari•ation of appointment by stating that "notwithstanding any rules the appointment is regularised" strikes at the root of existing rules prescrib- ing promotion, selection or competitive examination as methods of !recruit- ment. Therefore the regularisat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.