Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari's case (supra) that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and is subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise.

9. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondents that none of the vested rights of the petitioners have been infringed by amending the Rules and subjecting the petitioners to fresh interview in terms of the amended Rules may not strictly be justified in normal circumstances. However, Hon'ble Chief Justice has recorded a note on 31.05.2004 to the effect that the marks assigned for oral examination are ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The amendment in the Rules is on the basis of principle of law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby unduly excessive marks for interview providing leverage to the Selection Committee has not found favour and, therefore, the objective for which the Rules were amended cannot be said to be unjustified which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. At this stage, the note written by Hon'ble Chief Justice on 31.05.2004 requires to be reproduced. The said note, which is taken from the record produced by the official respondents, reads as under:

Sd/ (Binod Kumar Roy) Chief Justice 31.05.2004

10. A perusal of the note shows that Hon'ble Chief Justice was aware of the higher marks assigned for oral examination and had taken a conscious decision for amending the Rules relating to the vacancies already notified. In view of the said fact, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. K. Ramulu's case (supra) would be applicable which it was held as under:

12. ...But the question is whether the ratio in Rangaiah case, (1983) 3 SCC 284, would apply to the facts of this case. The Government therein merely amended the Rules, applied the amended Rules without taking any conscious decision not to fill up the existing vacancies pending amendment of the Rules on the date the new Rules came into force. It is true, as contended by Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in ay a decision and those cited by him are P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. 1988 Supp SCC 740, P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka , A.A. Calton v. Director of Education , N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission , Ramesh Kumar Choudha v. State of M.P. . In none of the decisions, a situation which has arisen in the present case had come up for consideration. Even Rule 3 of the General Rules is not of any help to the respondent for the reason that Rule 3 contemplates making of an appointment in accordance with the existing Rules.