Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1971 (12) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In pursuance of an advertisement dated November 8, 1968, issued by the State Public Service Commission, they and certain others applied for the said posts for which at the time there were sixty vacancies. One of the qualifications required of such applicants was that they should be below the age of 32 years on July 1, 1961. The Commission was to hold the examination on the 7th and 8th May, 1969. The examination, however, could not be held as the examinees staged a walk out on the ground that the question paper in civil law was at variance with the Information for candidates previously issued by the Commission. The Commission thereafter issued another notice, dated July 5, 1969 for holding another examinat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of three papers of 100 marks each in civil law, criminal law and language, and 200 marks were earmarked for the oral test. 5. The contention of these respondents then was that the said rules did not provide for a written examination, that such an examination was provided only by the said 'Information for candidates' issued by the Commission and that the said Rules did not also provide for the maximum and minimum marks and the requisite percentage of marks required for selection. Therefore, the said information , the written examination proposed to be held thereunder, the requirement of certain percentage of marks etc. were all ultra vires and invalid. According to the State, the Governor had issued certain Government orders, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ereunder prescribing the pattern of examination and the maximum and qualifying marks constituted delegated legislation. The High Court held that Rule 5, in so far as it empowered the Government to determine whether an examination was necessary or not, and the pattern of such an examination, contravened Art. 234, and was, therefore, void. It further held that the said Government orders made under Rule 5 were also void having been issued under an invalid rule. In this view, the High Court held that the Commission could not hold the examination under the said Government orders and issued a direction upon the Commission to that effect. 8. The defects in Rule 5 pointed out by the High Court in its said judgment were thereafter removed. The Go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ited applications in November, 1968 there were, as aforesaid, only 60 vacancies to be filled in. By now the number had increased to 200. The Commission was desirous to call for fresh applications for all the 200 posts and hold a fresh examination under the amended Rule 5. The High Court, however, turned down this proposal and directed the Commission to hold a separate examination for those who had applied in 1968 under the unamended Rule in respect of the original 60 vacancies and to call separate applications and hold a separate examination for the remaining 140 vacancies. The reason given for such a direction was that if the respondents were required to file fresh applications and made to appear in the examination along with the rest of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, was perfectly justified in treating the earlier applications of the respondents as invalid on the ground that they had been invited under an illegal rule, and calling for fresh applications and holding a fresh examination in respect of all the 200 vacancies. There was thus no question of any breach of Art. 16, nor of any violation of any right of the respondents as none was acquired by them. Equally, there was no question of the amended Rule 5 being prospective or retrospective as the Commission had to act afresh under the amended rule, the unamended rule having been struck down and there being, therefore, no basis on which the applications of the respondents made in 1968 could be treated as valid applications. 13. The direct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates