Nath Chaudhary & Ors Vs. Abahi Kumar & Ors  Insc 94 (21 February 2001)
Babu & S.N. Phukan. Rajendra Babu, J.
C.A.No1398/2001 (@SLP(C)No.5288/2000) & C.A.No1399/2001
these cases the appellants were selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission
[hereinafter referred to as Commission] for appointment as Motor Vehicle
Inspectors pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Commission on 12.5.1989.
The advertisement indicated that candidates possessing the following
qualification and experience are eligible for appointment to the said post:
Qualification:- (Required minimum technical
Matriculation (Kha) Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering
after completing three years course would be necessary from a recognized
The diploma holder or post diploma holder in Automobile Engineering would be
Such candidates, who have mechanic level qualification related to Motor trade,
would not be competent.
Experience:- (Ka) For the candidates, who after
completing three years course of Automobile Engineering have obtained diploma,
must possess three years practical experience in an Automobile Engineering
Workshop registered under the Factories Act.
Such candidates, who have obtained diploma in Mechanical Engineering after
completing three years course compulsorily, must possess five years practical
experience in an Automobile Engineering Institution registered under the
Candidates having post diploma in Automobile Engineering compulsorily possess
two years practical work experience in a workshop of Automobile Engineering
institution registered under the Factories Act.
the process of selection was pending, a new rule was introduced in Recruitment
Rules requiring the person to be selected as a Motor Vehicle Inspector to
possess a driving licence. Pursuant to the selection made by the Commission,
the appellants were appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the year 1991 and
they have continued to hold the said posts till date.
ground that the selected candidates do not possess the qualification or experience
in appointment in an appropriate automobile institution registered under the
Factories Act, 1948 or they did not possess driving licence, their appointments
were challenged by some of the candidates who were not selected in several writ
petitions. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who dealt with these writ
petitions did not examine the contentions raised on behalf of the writ
petitioners in the necessary detail with reference to each selected candidate
but directed the Transport Commissioner to do that exercise. On appeal, the
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the report sent by the Transport
Commissioner pursuant to the order made by the learned Single Judge which was
received during the pendency of the appeal and directed fresh consideration of
the matter by the Transport Commissioner.
fail to understand as to how the matter of selection and appointment to a post
could have been entrusted to the Transport Commissioner when the Commission had
been specifically entrusted with such a job and such Commission, which is an
autonomous authority having a constitutional status, has selected the
candidates whose appointments were in challenge. If the selection of these
candidates was improper the same should have been set aside with appropriate
directions to redo the process of selection or at best, the High Court could
have directed the Government, which is the appointing authority, to take
appropriate steps in the matter. However, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, we need not dilate on this aspect nor do we need to examine various
elaborate contentions addressed by either side. Suffice to say that all the
selected candidates, who are in employment, except one, possess necessary
qualification and in regard to that one excepted candidate, it cannot be
disputed that he possesses equivalent qualification. Thus the dispute narrows
down to one aspect, that is, the selected candidates may not possess necessary
experience which is now required to be examined by the Transport Commissioner.
selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor
Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade. Now that they have worked in such posts
for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience.
Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now.
Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to
anomalous results. Since we are disposing of these matters on equitable
consideration, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted
that their cases for appointment should also be considered. It is not clear
whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. If that
is so, unless any one or more of the selected candidates are displaced, the cases
of the contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that such
adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable
considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a
long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class.
effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a
selection need not be disturbed. Such a view can be derived from several
decisions of this Court including the decisions in Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana
& Ors., 1979 (1) SCC 168; District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram
Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. vs. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655; and H.C.Puttaswamy & Ors. vs. The Honble
Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore & Ors., 1991 Supp. (2) SCC
421. Therefore, we must let the matters lie where they are.
special features of this case, we set aside the order of the High Court and
dismiss the writ petitions. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. No costs.