Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

141. Thereafter it appears that the then existing Rule 3(c),5 and 6 of old 1936 Rules were amended by notification dated 28.7.1969 and Rule-23 of old 1936 Rules was amended by notification dated 26.11.1971. The aforesaid amended Rules were found violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by Hon'ble Apex Court in P.D. Agrawal's case. Vide notification dated 4.8.1987 an amendment in the said rules came into being with prospective effect whereby earlier existing Rules 9(ii) had been done away with, resulting which the requirement of having technical qualification under Rule 9(i) or passing any qualifying examination no longer remained applicable for promotion,. However, by these amending rules substantial changes were brought about under Rule-5 and Rule-6 of said Rules was deleted. Under Rule 5(i) 66 2/3 percent vacancies were liable to be filled up in the quota of direct recruitment on the basis of competitive examination conducted by the commission and under Rule 5(ii) 25 percent vacancies were liable to be filled by promotion through commission from amongst such permanent incumbents of posts in Public Works Departments Sub-ordinate Engineering Service and Public Works Department Computer's Service as have put in atleast seven years continuous service on such posts in the proportion of respective permanent cadre strength. Under Rule 5(iii), 8 1/3 percent vacancies in the quota of promotion were liable to be filled up through commission from amongst such permanent incumbents of the posts in Public Works Department Sub-ordinate Engineering Service and Public Works Department Computer's Service as possess bachelor's degree in Engineering from a recognised institution or Associate members of the Institute of Engineers in proportion of respective permanent cadre strength. Thereafter by subsequent amendment effected in old 1936 Rules vide notification dated 25.9.1997 by U.P. Service of Engineers (B & R.B.) Class II (Fourth Amendment) Rules-1997 only quota of Direct Recruitment had been reduced from 66 2/3 percent to 58.34 percent and quota for promotion under Rule 5(ii) had been increased from 25 percent to 33.33 percent, however 8.33% quota for promotion for degree holders belonging to feeder cadre remained intact. The notifications of the years 1987 and 1997 containing amended Rule-5(iii) of old 1936 Rules were found violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by this court in Aruvendra Kumar Garg's case, but this court has quashed both the notifications in toto.

150. Later on it appears that the aforesaid Rule 11 of the said Rule had been amended vide Notification No. 492 EBR/dated 28.7.1969 made effective from 1.3.1962 i.e. with retrospective effect, whereby Rule 11 (A) had been inserted providing syllabus and the Rules relating to the competitive examination as prescribed from time to time by the Commission with the approval of Governor. For ready reference the amended provisions inserted as Rule 11(A) by Notification dated 28th July, 1969 is reproduced as under:

11.A. Syllabus - The syllabus and the rules resulting to the competitive examination will be prescribed from time to time by the Commission with the approval of the Governor.

Note:- The syllabus and the subjects at present in force will be found in Appendix III.

(Effective from 1.3.62 vide notification No. 492 EBR dt. 28.7.69).

151. Thus from a plain reading of the aforesaid Rules it is clear that the Rule 11 and 11 (A) of old 1936 Rules had dealt with procedure for submitting application form for direct recruitment and syllabus of competitive examination through Commission and had nothing to do with any procedure for selection for promotion from feeder cadre. Under Rule 11-A of said Rules too, the syllabus and Rules relating to competitive examination was to be prescribed by the commission with the approval of Governor from time to time and such Rules providing syllabus also can not be said to be integral part of the rule framed in purported exercise of power under the proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution and cannot be held to be at par with the Rules framed thereunder. However said Rules relating the syllabus at the most be in the nature of sub-ordinate legislation, thus, have statutory force and binding effect, but contrary to it as held earlier that syllabus and course curriculum earlier prescribed for written test for non-degree holder members of feeder cadre to become eligible for promotion as contained extract of 1955 Manual of Orders as amended from time to time referred earlier was framed under purported exercise of power by Governor as stood under Rule 9(ii) of old 1936 Rules at relevant point of time and are quite distinct from syllabus contemplated by Rule 11-A of said Rules, thus both cannot be mixed together, but it appears that while dealing with the issue the Division Bench of this Court has misread and misconstrued Rule 11 and 11 (A) of old 1936 Rules and syllabus contemplated thereunder has treated as part of qualifying examination by written test, which is not acceptable to us.

152. To arrive at the said conclusion on the question whether suitability of candidates can be determined merely by holding interview, it appears that this ourt in Vijai Kumar's case has placed reliance upon a decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in R. Chitralekha's case (supra), wherein the selection in question related to admission in Medical and Engineering College and procedure pertaining to manner of selection based on interview alone was not found faulty by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in case of Praveen Singh (supra) two Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, though did not notice the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision but after referring and discussing the earlier decisions rendered in Ashok v. State of Karnataka , Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana , Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan and J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that having regard to the scheme of competitive examination for selection based upon both written examination and interview under which written examination carrying total 400 marks in different subjects with minimum 33% qualifying marks in each subject and 45% marks in aggregate as a condition precedent for appearing in interview carrying only 50 marks, it cannot be held that these 50 marks of interview alone would be relevant and remaining 400 marks of written examination would render totally superfluous and of no effect at all.