Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in Sarita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 1 March, 2024Matching Fragments
13. The next judgment referred to by Shri. Srivastava is the one rendered by three Judges Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411; paragraphs no. 4 & 5 whereof are reproduced herein below:-
"4. There is no dispute that under the Recruitment Rules as well as under the advertisement dated October 6, 1983 issued by the Public Service Commission, holders of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering were eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors alongwith holders of Diploma in Automobile Engineering. On receipt of the applications from the candidates the Commission commenced the process of selection as it scrutinised the applications and issued letters for interview to the respective candidates. In fact the Commission commenced the interviews on August 1984 and it had almost completed the process of selection but the selection could not be completed on account of interim orders issued by the High Court at the instance of candidates seeking reservation for local candidates. The Commission completed the interviews of all the candidates and it finalised the list of selected candidates by June 2, 1987 and the result was published in the State Gazette on July 23, 1987. In addition to that the selected candidates were intimated by the Commission by separate letters. In view of these facts the sole question for consideration is as to whether the amendment made in the Rules on May 14, 1987 rendered the selection illegal. Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 Admittedly the amending Rules do not contain any provision enforcing the amended Rules with retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rules it must be held to be prospective in nature. The Rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the right of candidates holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making appointment as well as on the date of scrutiny by the Commission they were qualified for selection and appointment. In fact the entire selection in the normal course would have been finalised much before the amendment of Rules, but for the interim orders of the High Court. If there had been no interim orders, the selected candidates would have been appointed much before the amendment of Rules. Since the process of selection had commenced and it could not be completed on account of the interim orders of the High Court, the appellants' right to selection and appointment could not be defeated by subsequent amendment of Rules.
16. Lastly, Sri. Srivastava has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Raisul Islam & Ors. Vs. Gokul Mohan Hazarika & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 560, para no. 38 whereof is being reproduced herein below:-
"38. We are unable to agree with Mr Hansaria that the High Court had committed an error in relying on the unamended Rules since the law has been well settled that the process of selection commenced on the basis of the Rules then in existence would continue under the said Rules, even though the Rules may have been amended in the meantime. Accordingly, the seniority of members of the service would, no doubt, be governed under Rule 19, but the selection process has to be completed under Rule 4 in order to attract the provisions of Rule 19. The vacancies for which the advertisement had been published in 1984 were directed to be filled up by the High Court on the basis of Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 the unamended Rule 4 which provided for quota between promotees and direct recruits and, accordingly, placed 45 of the direct recruits immediately below the first 45 promotees out of the list of 129 promotees in keeping with the said quota system for the year 1986."
28. The aforesaid judgment would certainly govern the issue, therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in holding the aforesaid decision as having no application to the facts of the present case cannot be sustained. In fact, the case we are dealing with, stands on a better footing than the facts governing the aforesaid case, wherein the selection process was not completed when a decision to reduce the marks was made. The Division Bench is also not correct in not following the earlier decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench in Prajapati Ishwarbhai Joitaram v. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1350 of 2012 dated 20.03.2013, which dealt with the issue of reduction in cut-off marks to accommodate horizontal reservations.
29. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardev Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 Singh (supra) is also distinguishable inasmuch as the said case deals with promotion whereas the present case pertains to selection.
30. As regards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, in the case of Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (supra), it would suffice to state that the same is also distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the said case, the advertisement was published in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group 'C' posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015, the selection process was completed in accordance with the said Rules, 2015 and by way of abundant caution, though not necessitated, the 1978 Rules were amended on 22.11.2016, however, the final result was declared on 24.12.2016 and the appointment letters were issued during the months of April and May, 2017, nonetheless, the rules of the game had not been changed in the said case. As far as paragraph no. 32 is concerned, it can be Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 merely stated to be a "obiter dictum" and in fact contrary view has been taken in the case of Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. (supra) apart from the fact that the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Nagarajan (Supra) and by the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Mahendran & Ors. (Supra), K. Manjusree (Supra) and Tamil Nadu Computer Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) (supra) hold the field.