Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, we may now proceed to examine whether, prima facie, the impugned rules have travelled beyond the rule-making power. As noted earlier, the learned Single

- 31 -

Judge had found that the matters relating to eligibility criteria (reservation) and forfeiture of licence travel beyond the Excise Act. As far as the forfeiture of licences is concerned, the challenge essentially is to the provisos to Rule 5-A of the Excise Rules. However, a plain reading of the proviso to Rule 5-A indicates that it does not provide for any forfeiture of licence.

37. The proviso to Rule 5-A of the Excise Rules merely provides for forfeiture of the right to renew certain licences [CL-2, CL-9 and CL-11(C)], which are not renewed as on the date of publication of the impugned rules. Thus, the proviso curtails the renewal of

- 32 -

licences. The Excise Act does not provide for renewal of licences. The provision for renewal is a right conferred by the Rules.

(3) The selection of candidates for service shall be made by the Committee by conducting a competitive examination and after interviewing them."

Provided that in any specific circumstance the State Government may, in consultation with the General Administration Department prescribe the criteria and procedure for the selection of candidates." 57.1 The concerned School Education Department proposed a scheme for the selection of Assistant Teachers under the proviso to Rule 10(3) of the said Rules. The same was approved, and the recruitment process was initiated. The selection of Assistant Teachers was to be made by a Committee presided over by a nominated officer. In this context, the appellant contended that the proviso to Rule 10(3) was invalid because it confers unguided and excessive delegation of powers on the State Government in the matter of criteria and procedure for recruitment. 57.2 The Supreme Court rejected the said challenge, inter alia, on the ground that the power to frame these criteria and procedure was not delegated to any subordinate authority. The court noted that:

- 56 -

75. The respondents have also challenged the insertion of proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules whereby CL-2A licences are excluded from the scope of Rule 12 of the Rules. Although, it is contended that the said exclusion of CL-2A licences is arbitrary, we do not think it necessary to address this issue at this stage. We are refraining from examining the said question at this stage for several reasons. First, that the impugned order is not premised on the challenge to the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules; second, we have not heard detailed oral submissions on this question; and third, that the learned AGA has at the outset submitted that the auction proposed to be conducted would be confined to the number of licences that had lapsed and those that belonged to the state authorities / agencies. We thus reserve the liberty of the parties to advance their submissions regarding their challenge to proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules before the learned Single Judge in the pending petition. However, we are unable to accept that any interim orders are warranted.