Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karantaka & Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411, in para Nos.4 & 5, has held as under:-

"4. There is no dispute that under the Recruitment Rules as well as under the advertisement dated 6. 10.1983 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 in 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 2nd June 1987 and the result was published in the State Gazette on 23rd July 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 (D.B. SAW/1131/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (21 of 37) [CW-3703/2021] consideration is as to whether the amendment made in the Rules on 14th May 1987 rendered the selection illegal. Admittedly the amending Rule does not contain any provision enforcing the amended Rule with retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rule 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.
"5. It is well-settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain any express provision giving the amendment (D.B. SAW/1131/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (25 of 37) [CW-3703/2021] retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.7. In view of the above the appellants' selection and appointment could not be held as illegal as the process of selection had commenced in 1983 which had to be completed in accordance with law as itstood at the commencement of the selection. The amended Rule could not be applied to invalidate the selection made by the Commission. Strangely theTribunal did not follow the latest authority of this Court as laid down in Calton case, on the ground that the view taken in that case was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Ramkrishna Rao, [1972] 2 SCC830. We have carefully considered the decision butwe do not find anything therein contrary to the view taken in Calton case."Secondly, in NT Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors.

18. He further submitted that looking to the shortage of teachers/faculties, they made every effort to complete the selection process and there being legal complications on account of failure by the selection committee to act as per Section 6 of the Act of 1974 the selection process could not be proceeded further and in the meantime educational qualification for the posts in question was also changed by the MCI, therefore they sought legal opinion of the learned Advocate General with regard to the selection process.

27. Mr. Angad Mirdha., appearing on behalf of the MCI submitted that during pendency of these writ petitions number of seats of students in Government Medical College have also been increased, therefore, more teachers are required in the Medical Colleges. He further submitted that all the Universities in the country are bound to follow the Regulations issued by the NMCI as amended from time to time.

28. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

29. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly a conscious decision has been taken to cancel the selection process by the respondents based on (D.B. SAW/1131/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (36 of 37) [CW-3703/2021] the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General as well as due to change in the circumstances i.e. qualification & reservation to EWS, which in the opinion of this Court is not required to be interfered with; secondly although the allegation of mala fide has been levelled by the petitioners against the respondent No.6 who was RAS officer at the relevant point of time & working on deputation as Registrar in RUHS but the said allegation is not sustainable as he in no manner appears to be interested in cancellation of the selection process and he acted only as per the directions of the Board of Management as well as based on the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General and was making compliance of the directions received from his higher authorities and the petitioners have failed to prove contrary or otherwise by any iota/stretch of evidence; thirdly, the petitioners do not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because they have cleared the screening test and the RUHS being an employer has a right to fill up or not the posts and no writ or mandamus can be issued by this Court unless the discrimination is made by RUHS in regard to filling up of the posts or an arbitrariness is committed; fourthly the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners pertain to applicability of educational qualification with prospective effect however the distinguishable feature is that in the aforesaid matters, the selection process by the time already stood completed, whereas, in the present matters admittedly, the recruitment process started in 2015 and the same could not be completed till date on account of which the students are suffering;