Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jayaram. N.C vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.15266/2023 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.11292/2023 (S-KSAT) AND
WRIT PETITION NO.15329/2023 (S-KSAT)
W.P. NO.15266/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAHADEVI SARAWAR
D/O GURUSANGAPPA SARWAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PERMANENTLY R/AT H.NO.B3
HIDKAL DAM POST,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI.
AND
PRSENTLY UNDER THE CARE OF
C/O ARUN NAIK
NO.320, 2ND MAIN ROAD
HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU- 560073.
2. STI VISHAL PATEL
S/O SHIVANAGOWDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PERMANENTLY R/OF NO.53
2
MUKAMBIKA NAGARA
DHARWAD -580008
AND
PRESENTLY UNDER THE CARE OF
SRI KAILASHNATH PATIL
NO.174, 9TH MAIN ROAD
2ND CROSS, RMV EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560080.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU- 560001.
2. DEPARTMENT OF HOME
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
ROOM NO.222, 2ND FLOOR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU- 560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATION
6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX
CAUVERY BHAVAN
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU- 560009.
4. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF
INDIA UNIVERSITY
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
3
GNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD
TEACHERS COLONY, NAGARBHAVI
BENGALURU -560072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3 SRI ADITHYA NARAYAN, ADV. FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 IN APP. NO.3794/2022 AND 3795/2022 (BATCH OF APPLICATION NOS.3794 TO 3809/2022 AND 3811/2022) ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS DATED 30.11.2022 IN APP. NO.3794/2022 AND 3795/2022 (BATCH OF APPLICATION NOS.3794 TO 3809/2022 AND 3811/2022) AS PRAYED THEREIN AND ETC.
W.P.NO.11292/2023 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. C.S. LALITHA KUMARI W/O SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN C.S. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT G16, 1ST CROSS, KESHAVANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU- 560023.
2. SRI. VENKOBA ALIAS YANKOBA S/O DURAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR WATER TANK, 4 DEENASAMUDRA, MASKI (TQ), RAICHUR DISTRICT- 585124.
3. SRI VIVEK S/O SRI. RAMDAS NAIK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BANDEGUDDE VILLAGE AND POST, HONNAVAR TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581334.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, ROOM NO.222, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009.
4. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 5 GNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD, TEACHERS COLONY, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU- 560 072.
5. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5 SRI ADITHYA NARAYAN, ADV. FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 IN A. NO.4927 TO 4949/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS NO.4929/2022, 4939/2022 AND 4941/2022 (IN BATCH OF APPLICATION NO.4927 TO 4929/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AS PRAYED THEREIN AND ETC.
W.P. NO.15329/2023 BETWEEN:
SRI. JAYARAM. N.C. S/O CHANDRAYI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6 R/AT NAYAKANAHALLI(V), KARI POST, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573120.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI M NAGARAJAN, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMES, ROOM NO.222, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
4. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, GNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD, TEACHERS COLONY, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560072.7
5. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS CUM ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT PLEADERS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5 SRI ADITHYA NARAYAN, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 IN A. NO.4927 TO 4949/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.4932/2022 (IN BATCH OF APPLICATION NO. 4927 TO 4949-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AS PRAYED THEREIN AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 23.06.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 8 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners in the above batch of writ petitions are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 30.11.2022 in Application Nos.3794/2022 to 3809/2022 and 3811/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') and to allow the said Applications, wherein they have sought a declaration that the examination conducted on 23rd and 24th July 2022 pursuant to the notification dated 05.07.2022 bearing No.r¦J£ï:£ÉøÀ:09:2019-20, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (Annexure-A8) in respect of the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors-cum-Assistant Government Pleaders is arbitrary and perverse, and therefore null and void and sought for a writ of 9 mandamus directing the respondents to conduct fresh examination.
2. Since the relief sought and contentions raised in all the above writ petitions are identical, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the candidates who applied for the post of either Assistant Public Prosecutor (for short, 'APP') or District Government Pleader (for short, 'DGP') in pursuance to notification dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure-A2) and 26.11.2019 (Annexure-A1) inviting applications to fill up 100 vacancies. The qualification/eligibility criteria prescribed was that the candidate must be an Advocate under the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and must be practicing as an 10 Advocate in Courts of Civil and criminal jurisdiction in India and must have so practiced for not less than 3 years as on the last date fixed for submission of applications. The method of selection was by written examination and interview to be conducted by the Selection Committee. The written examination consisted of two parts, preliminary and main examination.
4. The petitioners were qualified in the preliminary examination and they were called for main examination. The petitioners wrote the main examination conducted on 23.07.2022 and 24.07.2022. The petitioners approached the Tribunal to declare the examination conducted as arbitrary, null and void, contending mainly that the examination was not conducted by the Selection Committee and it was delegated to National Law School of India University (for short, 'NLSIU') which had no authority 11 to conduct the examination and that the Selection Authority is the competent authority to conduct examination and interview. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected the contentions of the petitioners and consequently rejected the Applications.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.Nagarajan for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.Adithya Narayan for respondent No.4. Perused writ petition papers.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.M.Nagarajan would submit that the petitioners are practicing Advocates and they applied for the post of APP or DGP in pursuance to the recruitment notification dated 30.09.2019 and he also submits 12 that they have fulfilled the eligibility criteria as prescribed under the recruitment notification. He further submits that the petitioners qualified in the preliminary examination and they also participated in the main examination. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation and submits that the selection shall be made by Selection Committee by conducting two examinations i.e., preliminary examination and main examination and Viva Voce. It is also submitted that the main examination shall consist of three papers of essay type and syllabus being as specified in Annexure-3 to the recruitment rules. Learned counsel refers to Government order dated 17.07.2019 and submits that the Government entrusted the process of conducting the preliminary examination to Karnataka Examination Authority (for short, 'KEA') and main 13 examination to NLSIU. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee was constituted under Government order dated 11.06.2018 and in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the entire process of selection ought to have been conducted by Selection Committee and it could not have delegated conducting of main examination to NLSIU. It is contended that once the Selection Committee is constituted, it is for the Selection Committee to conduct interview for the selection post and Government could not have issued Government Order authorizing NLSIU to conduct main examination. Hence, the main examination conducted by NLSIU is unauthorized and NLSIU has no authority to conduct the examination. Learned counsel would contend that, when a statute prescribes that a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that particular manner. As the State could not have 14 delegated conducting the process of examination to NLSIU, the entire process of conducting examination is vitiated, which requires to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel Sri.M.Nagarajan would further contend that the questions asked have no nexus with the object of selecting and appointing APP or DGP. Further, it is contended that the questions asked were out of syllabus and that when syllabus is prescribed, the questions could be asked only within the syllabus. Learned counsel referring to questions in Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II and Law Paper-III submits that the questions are out of syllabus and questions have no nexus to the performance of duty as APP or DGP. Thus, it is prayed to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and to allow the Applications as prayed.
15
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy would submit that the petitioners having participated in the main examination could not have turned around and challenged the main examination, that too having failed to qualify. Moreover, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the selection process is complete and appointments have already been made. The petitioners have failed to make any of the selected candidates as party to the proceedings and their presence would be necessary since any order that would be passed would have a bearing on the selection and appointment of already selected and appointed candidates. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioners have not challenged Government order dated 17.07.2019 whereunder the Government, the Appointing Authority entrusted the conducting of 16 preliminary examination to KEA and main examination to NLSIU. In the absence of challenge to the said Government order, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules require the Selection Committee to select the APPs and DGPs and it also requires the Selection Committee to conduct examination. By Government order dated 17.07.2019, in exercise of its executive powers, Government entrusted the conducting of examination to KEA and NLSIU, which cannot be found fault with.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the petitioners are practicing Advocates and it is not open for them to contend that the questions are out of syllabus or that NLSIU has no authority to conduct examination. It is submitted that the syllabus prescribed is to test the 17 aptitude of the practicing Advocates and a practicing Advocate should be in a position to answer any question in the Law Papers as prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Further, he submits that the questions asked in the main examinations are all questions within the syllabus and if the petitioners are not able to answer the questions, it is unfortunate that they are before the Court contending that the questions are out of syllabus. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for consideration:
(a) Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the conduct of main examination having participated and failed in main examination?18
(b) Whether as contended, entrusting conducting of examination to KEA and NLSIU would amount to further delegation?
(c) Whether impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference?
11. Answer to the above point No.(a) would be in the Affirmative and point Nos.(b) & (c) in the Negative for the following reasons:
The petitioners are practicing Advocates and they applied for the post of APP and DGP in pursuance to notification dated 13.09.2019. As the petitioners possessed eligibility criteria prescribed under the Notification, they were called for preliminary examination conducted by KEA and as they qualified in the preliminary examination, they were also called for main examination conducted by NLSIU. The petitioners have raised objections for conducting main examination by NLSIU and they have not raised any 19 objections or there is no challenge to the preliminary examination conducted by KEA. Having failed to qualify in the main examination conducted by NLSIU, the petitioners are finding fault with the examination conducted by NLSIU. Whereas, since the petitioners have qualified in preliminary examination conducted by KEA, they have no objections or grievance insofar as preliminary examination conducted by KEA is concerned, which shows the conduct of the petitioners.
12. It is settled position of law that a person who participates in the proceedings cannot turn around and challenge the said proceedings. In the instant case also, the petitioners having participated in the main examination conducted by NLSIU for selection to the post of APP and DGP and having failed to qualify in the main examination, the petitioners are estopped from questioning the conduct of examination 20 by NLSIU. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTTAR PRADESH VS. KARUNESH KUMAR AND OTHERS1, taking note of the earlier decisions has held that a candidate who willingly participates in the selection process by taking the written examination and thereafter the interview cannot turn around to challenge the selection process. In the instant case also, the petitioners having participated in the written examination cannot turn around to contend that the examination conducted by NLSIU is unauthorized.
13. The selection process in pursuance to the notification dated 13.09.2019 to the post of APP and DGP is complete and appointments have already been made as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The petitioners have placed on record Annexure-A13 notification dated 15.10.2022 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706 21 whereunder the names of candidates eligible for interview is published. The petitioners have not made any of the candidates called for interview or any candidate who is appointed as APP or DGP as party to the proceedings before the Tribunal or before this Court. To examine the relief sought by the petitioners, the presence of the candidates who have qualified in the main examination and candidates who are appointed subsequently would be necessary, since any order that would be passed would affect the selected and appointed candidates.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.H.SIRAJ VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS2 held that where there is challenge to select list, all the candidates in the select list should have been impleaded as parties to the writ petitions as 2 (2006) 6 SCC 395 22 otherwise they will be affected without being heard. At paragraph 75, it is held as follows:
"75. The writ petitions have also to fall on the ground of absence of necessary parties in the party array. Though the appellant- petitioners contend that they are only challenging the list to a limited extent, acceptance of their contention will result in a total rearrangement of the select list. The candidates will be displaced from their present ranks, besides some of them may also be out of the select list of 70. It was, therefore, imperative that all the candidates in the select list should have been impleaded as parties to the writ petitions as otherwise they will be affected without being heard. Publication in the newspaper does not cure this defect. There are only a specified definite number of candidates who had to be impleaded, namely, 70. It is not as if there are a large unspecified number of people to be affected. In such cases, resort cannot be made to Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules. That rule can be applied only when very large number of candidates are involved and it may not be able to pinpoint 23 those candidates with details. In our view, the writ petitions have to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties also."
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Government could not have delegated conducting of main examination to NLSIU, as the conducting of examination in terms of Cadre and Recruitment Rules is by Selection Committee. The State which is the Appointing Authority under Government order dated 17.07.2019 entrusted the conducting of main examination to NLSIU. The said Government Order is not under challenge. Without challenging the said Government order which entrusts the conducting of main examination to NLSIU, the petitioners could not contend that main examination conducted by NLSIU is without authority.
16. The other question would be whether entrusting conducting of examination to NLSIU would 24 amount to further delegation, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules would state that, the selection of APP and DGP shall be made by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose by the Government. In other words, the Government shall have to constitute a Selection Committee, which is constituted under Government order dated 11.06.2018 (Document No.1, Page 294 of writ petition). Annexure-1 to C and R Rules requires Selection Committee to conduct preliminary and main examination as well as Viva Voce. When the Cadre and Recruitment Rules authorizes the Government to constitute a Selection Committee, it is well within its power to entrust the conducting of examination to NLSIU, a special body of academicians, to assist the Selection Committee in the process of conducting examination. Authorizing NLSIU to conduct of examination would not amount to 25 delegation or handing over power of selection to NLSIU. NLSIU was entrusted with limited roll of conducting examination and it is only a facilitating agency to set the examination question papers and to prepare model answers, since it is a specialized Law University. The State being the Appointing Authority has every authority to regulate the proper selection of candidates for the post of APP and DGP without compromising the eligibility criteria or the prescribed qualification.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SIDDARTHA SARAWGI VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND OTHERS3, has laid down principles of permissible delegation which reads as follows:
"2. Delegation is the act of making or commissioning a delegate. It generally means 3 (2014) 16 SCC 248 26 parting of powers by the person who grants the delegation and conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself. "Delegation" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:
"The act of entrusting another with authority or empowering another to act as an agent or representative."
In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon, "delegation is the act of making or commissioning a delegate. Delegation generally means parting of powers by the person who grants the delegation, but it also means conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself."
3. Mathew, J. in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CST [Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CST, (1974) 4 SCC 98 :
1974 SCC (Tax) 226] has succinctly discussed the concept of delegation. Para 37 reads as follows: (SCC p. 116) "37. ... Delegation is not the complete handing over or transference of a power from one person or body of persons to another.27
Delegation may be defined as the entrusting, by a person or body of persons, of the exercise of a power residing in that person or body of persons, to another person or body of persons, with complete power of revocation or amendment remaining in the grantor or delegator. It is important to grasp the implications of this, for, much confusion of thought has unfortunately resulted from assuming that delegation involves or may involve, the complete abdication or abrogation of a power. This is precluded by the definition. Delegation often involves the granting of discretionary authority to another, but such authority is purely derivative. The ultimate power always remains in the delegator and is never renounced."
4. There is a subtle distinction between delegation of legislative powers and delegation of non-legislative/administrative powers. As far as delegation of power to legislate is concerned, the law is well settled: the said power cannot be sub-delegated. The legislature cannot delegate essential legislative functions which consist in the determination or 28 choosing of the legislative policy and formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct [Harishankar Bagla v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 465 at p. 468, para 9:1954 Cri LJ 1322:(1955) 1 SCR 380 at p. 388; Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 516 at p. 524, para 24] . Subordinate legislation which is generally in the realm of rules and regulations dealing with the procedure on implementation of plenary legislation is generally a task entrusted to a specified authority. Since the legislature need not spend its time for working out the details on implementation of the law, it has thought it fit to entrust the said task to an agency. That agency cannot entrust such task to its subordinates; it would be a breach of the confidence reposed on the delegate.
5. Regarding delegation of non-
legislative/administrative powers on a person or a body to do certain things, whether the delegate himself is to perform such functions or whether after taking decision as per the terms of the delegation, the said agency can authorise the implementation of the same on 29 somebody else, is the question to be considered. Once the power is conferred, after exercising the said power, how to implement the decision taken in the process, is a matter of procedure. The legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy, confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the framework of that policy [Khambhalia Municipality v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 SC 1048 at p. 1051, para 7] . So long as the essential function of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate. It is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well. In furtherance of the implementation of the decision already taken by the primary delegate as per the delegation, ministerial or clerical tasks may be performed by authorised officers. The complexity of modern day administration and the expansion of functions of the State to the economic and social spheres have made it necessary that the legislature gives wide powers to various 30 authorities when the situation requires it. Today's governmental functions are a lot more complex and the need for delegation of powers has become more compelling. It cannot be expected that the head of the administrative body performs each and every task himself."
(emphasis supplied)
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS VS. K.BHASKARAN4, laid down principles of delegation of administrative power and at paragraph 14, has held as follows:
"14. The following principles can thus be culled out from the decisions of this Court: (i) A statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report, as that is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power; (ii) If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake 4 (2020) 14 SCC 345 31 preparatory work, and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have been validly made if the degree of control maintained by the authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authority's own; (iii) Even in cases of sub-delegation, so long as the essential function of decision-
making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate and it is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well; and (iv) Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires."
19. In the instant case also, entrusting of conducting main examination to NLSIU would be to assist the Selection Committee and the power of 32 selection is in the hands of Selection Committee itself. Mere entrusting conducting of main examination would not amount to any delegation or excessive delegation and it would only amount to entrusting of an administrative function.
20. With regard to the petitioners contention that a 'when a statute prescribes that a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that particular manner', it is to be noticed that the right to do a particular thing, carries with it, the right to regulate how the particular thing is to be done. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BATUK DEO PATI TRIPATHI AND OTHERS5, at paragraph 10, has observed as follows:
"10. ..................... The power to do a thing necessarily carries with it the power to 5 (1978) 2 SCC 102 33 regulate the manner in which the thing may be done. It is an incident of the power itself and indeed, without it, the exercise of the power may in practice be fraught with difficulties which will frustrate, rather than further, the object of the power. It is undoubtedly true that the rules framed for prescribing the manner in which a power may be exercised have to be truly regulatory in character................"
21. With regard to the contention that the questions in the main examination were out of syllabus and the questions asked had no nexus with the object of selection of APP or DGP, it is to be noted that all the petitioners are practicing Advocates who have practiced for more than 3 years. It is expected from an Advocate who has minimum of 3 years of practice to have basic knowledge of civil and criminal law. Upon perusal of the syllabus at Annexure-3 to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the question papers appended to the writ petition, we are of the 34 opinion that the questions asked are within the syllabus and are to test the aptitude of an Advocate to carry out the functions of APP or DGP. The petitioners cannot dictate to the Selection Authority or examination conducting authority to ask questions in a particular manner. It is unfortunate that the petitioners who are aspirants to the post of APP or DGP are before the Court making out a grievance that questions asked in the main examination are out of syllabus like any other schoolie. A professional and practicing Advocate is expected to have basic knowledge of conducting cases and the questions asked in the examination relates to the day-to-day practicing of an Advocate. The eligibility criteria itself is that a candidate must have practiced for a minimum of 3 years. A practicing Advocate would not complain of questions as out of syllabus. Out of thousands of candidates who participated in the selection process, 35 only a few number of candidates are before the Court complaining that questions are out of syllabus, which cannot be countenanced.
22. The Tribunal under impugned order has extensively dealt with all the contentions raised herein and by well-reasoned order rejected petitioners' Applications.
23. With regard to the contention that the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus or questions had no nexus with the object and purpose of the selection process, the Tribunal has rightly observed that there is a lot of difference between the examination conducted to the students in the College and in the competitive examinations. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, in the competitive examination, the questions are prepared to test the 36 deep knowledge in the subject and to assess the merit of the candidates.
24. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC.
CT: bms