2004 (4) TMI 646 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence and jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to frame rules.
2. Validity of selection criteria under Rule 51 of 1980 Rules vis-`a-vis Rule 8 of 1979 Rules.
3. Counting ad hoc experience as valid experience for eligibility.
4. Reasonableness of marks allocation for viva voce test.
5. Legality and arbitrariness of the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence and Jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to Frame Rules:
The High Court held that the Commission has the competence and jurisdiction to frame rules for conducting its business, such as the 1980 Rules, even though no such power is expressly conferred. This power is impliedly granted by the enactment.

2. Validity of Selection Criteria Under Rule 51 of 1980 Rules Vis-`a-Vis Rule 8 of 1979 Rules:
The High Court opined that Rule 8 of 1979 Rules, which prescribes the statutory method of recruitment, prevails over Rule 51 of 1980 Rules. The Commission did not properly follow and apply the method of selection relating to the service as prescribed under Rule 8 of 1979 Rules.

3. Counting Ad Hoc Experience as Valid Experience for Eligibility:
The High Court noticed that some respondents did not possess the requisite two years of experience as Registrar, Demonstrator, or Senior Resident. For example, Respondent No. 3 had only 22 months of experience, and Respondent No. 8 had 20 months and 27 days of experience, both less than the required two years.

4. Reasonableness of Marks Allocation for Viva Voce Test:
The High Court answered in the affirmative that 100 marks earmarked for the viva voce test and 40 marks for the record are excessive and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The statutory method of selection under Rule 8 of 1979 Rules was not comprehensively followed, necessitating the re-casting of Rule 51.

5. Legality and Arbitrariness of the Selection Process:
The High Court found that the selection process was arbitrary and illegal as the criteria laid down in Rule 51 of 1980 Rules were applied, ignoring Rule 8 of 1979 Rules. Marks for research experience, publications, or previous record of work were not considered, and the petitioner, despite having higher qualifications, was given minimum marks in the viva voce test, turning his merit into demerit.

Conclusions:
The High Court's judgment was upheld, directing the State to fully comply with the High Court's directions by giving all benefits to the appellant, including monetary benefits and seniority, placing him above Respondents 3 and 9 in the select list. The Court acknowledged the lapse of time and the ongoing service of the private respondents but emphasized restoring confidence in statutory bodies by strict compliance with legal requirements. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with costs borne by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.