Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.59 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983
Prior to the amendment of the Rules two
sources were available for appointment as
Sub-Registrar, namely, UDCs and LDCs.
Subsequently, Rules came to be amended
taking away the right of the LDCs for
appointment as Sub-Registrar. When the
vacancies were not being filled up in
accordance with the existing Rules, this
Court had pointed out that prior to the
amendment of the Rules, the vacancies were
existing and that the eligible candidates
65
were required to be considered in
accordance with the prevailing Rules.
Therefore, the mere fact of subsequent
amendment does not take away the right to
be considered in accordance with the
existing Rules. As a proposition of law,
there is no dispute and cannot be
disputed. But the question is whether the
ratio in Rangaiah case [(1983) 3 SCC 284 :
P.Ganeshwar Rao & Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 September, 1988
1983 SCC (L&S) 382] 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 many a decision and
those cited by him are P. Ganeshwar
Rao v. State of A.P. [1988 Supp SCC 740 :
Ramesh Kumar Choudha & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 20 September, 1996
13. It is seen that since the
Government have taken a conscious decision
not to make any appointment till the
amendment of the Rules, Rule 3 of the
General Rules is not of any help to the
respondent. The ratio in the case
of Ramesh Kumar Choudha v. State of
M.P. [(1996) 11 SCC 242 : (1996) 7 Scale
619] is also not of any help to the
respondent. Therein, this Court had
pointed out that the panel requires to be
made in accordance with the existing Rules
and operated upon. There cannot be any
dispute on that proposition or direction
issued by this Court. As stated earlier,
the Government was right in taking a
decision not to operate Rule 4 of the
General Rules due to their policy decision
to amend the Rules.
A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another on 25 March, 1983
1989 SCC (L&S) 123 : (1988) 8 ATC
957] , P. Mahendran v. State of
Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC 727] , A.A.
Calton v. Director of Education [(1983) 3
SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 356] , N.T. Devin
Katti v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 446 : (1990) 14 ATC 688] , Ramesh
Kumar Choudha v. State of M.P. [(1996) 11
SCC 242 : (1996) 7 Scale 619] In none of
these 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
66
making of an appointment in accordance
with the existing Rules.
P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989
1989 SCC (L&S) 123 : (1988) 8 ATC
957] , P. Mahendran v. State of
Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC 727] , A.A.
Calton v. Director of Education [(1983) 3
SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 356] , N.T. Devin
Katti v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 446 : (1990) 14 ATC 688] , Ramesh
Kumar Choudha v. State of M.P. [(1996) 11
SCC 242 : (1996) 7 Scale 619] In none of
these 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
66
making of an appointment in accordance
with the existing Rules.
Deepak Agrawal & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 31 March, 2011
“9. The law is thus clear that a
candidate has the right to be considered
in the light of the existing rules,
namely, “rules in force on the date” the
consideration takes place and that there
is no rule of absolute application that
vacancies must invariably be filled by the
law existing on the date when they arose.
As against the case of total exclusion and
absolute deprivation of a chance to be
considered as in Deepak Agarwal [Deepak
Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725
: (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 175] in the instant
case certain additional posts have been
included in the feeder cadre, thereby
expanding the zone of consideration. It is
not as if the writ petitioners or
similarly situated candidates were totally
excluded. At best, they now had to compete
with some more candidates. In any case,
since there was no accrued right nor was
9 (2017) 3 SCC 646
72
there any mandate that vacancies must be
filled invariably by the law existing on
the date when the vacancy arose, the State
was well within its rights to stipulate
that the vacancies be filled in accordance
with the Rules as amended. Secondly, the
process to amend the Rules had also begun
well before the Notification dated 24-11-
N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990
1989 SCC (L&S) 123 : (1988) 8 ATC
957] , P. Mahendran v. State of
Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC 727] , A.A.
Calton v. Director of Education [(1983) 3
SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 356] , N.T. Devin
Katti v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 446 : (1990) 14 ATC 688] , Ramesh
Kumar Choudha v. State of M.P. [(1996) 11
SCC 242 : (1996) 7 Scale 619] In none of
these 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
66
making of an appointment in accordance
with the existing Rules.