http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ASHOK ALIAS SOMANNA GOWDA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECY. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/10/1991

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1992 AIR   80            1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 493  1992 SCC  (1)  28        JT 1991 (4)   160  1991 SCALE  (2)796

ACT: Civil Services: Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selec- tion) Rules,1973:     Selection of Assistant Engineers-- Keeping 33.3 of  the total marks for intervie,,---Whether valid.

HEADNOTE:     The  Respondent-State invited applications for  recruit- ment  of  Assistant Engineers (Civil) and  (Mech.)  for  the Public  Works Department. According to the  rules  governing the recruitment, viz. Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973 the marks obtained  In the  qualifying  examination and the marks  secured  in  the interview would be the basis for selection. The total  marks for qualifying examination was kept at 100 and 50 marks were kept  for interview. Thus the marks allotted  for  interview was 333% of the total marks.     Appellant  No. 1 who applied for the post  of  Assistant Engineer (Civil) secured 29.50 marks out of 50 marks in  the interview,  his  marks in the  qualifying  examination  were 69.96,  totalling in all 99.46 marks out of 150. The  second appellant,  a candidate for the post of  Assistant  Engineer (Mech.)  secured 24.83 marks in the interview and his  marks in  the  qualifying examination being 66.40,  he  got  91.23 marks  out  of the total of 150 marks. Both  the  appellants were  not  selected as they got less marks  titan  the  last candidate  selected,  and they filed a petition  before  the State  Administrative Tribunal challenging the rides on  the ground  that the percentage of marks for viva voce fixed  at 333  was excessive. The Tribunal having dismissed the  peti- tions, the appellants have preferred the present appeal,  by special leave. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. 50 marks for interview out of 150 are  clearly in  violation of the settled law on this point. Some  candi- dates have been selected though 494 they  had secured much lesser marks than the  appellants  in the  qualifying examination but had secured very high  marks in  the viva voce out of 50 marks kept for this purpose.  If

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  marks for interview were kept even at 15% of the  total marks and merit list was prepared accordingly then both  the appellants  would have been selected and a large  number  of selected candidates would have gone much lower in the  merit list than the appellants. [495 G, 496 A-B]       Ashok  Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana &  Ors., [1988]  Supp.  S.C.R. 657; Mohinder Sain Garg  v.  State  of Punjab & Ors., J.T. 1990 (4) S.C. 704, relied on.       2.  Though the Karnataka State Civil Services  (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules are clearly in violation  of the dictum laid down by this Court, since the result of  the selections was declared in 1987 and the selected  candidates have  already  joined the posts, it would not  be  just  and proper to quash the selections on the above ground.  Further the selections  were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice is being consistently followed for the last 17 years  and  there Is no allegation of any malafides  in  the matter of selections. [496-C-D]       3. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the two appellants on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Assistant Engineer (Mech.), respectively in Public Works Department within a period of two months in case the  appel- lants are found suitable In all other respects according  to the Rules. [496-E]       4.  Since the appointments under the Rules  were  made way  back  in 1987, the case of other candidates  cannot  be considered  as  they  never approached  for  redress  within reasonable  time. The relief is thus restricted only to  the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. [496-F-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4088 of 1991.       From  the  Judgment and Order dated 24.5.1990  of  the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in  Application No. 887 of 1989 C/W. A. No. 2101/1989. 495     Naresh  Kaushik, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik and Shankar  Divate for the Appellants. M. Veerappa, S.R. Bhatt and Naveen R. Nath for the  Respond- ents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.     Sri  Ashok  alias  Somanna Gowda appellant No.  1  is  a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) having secured.. first class with distinction getting 69.96% marks from Karnataka Univer- sity.  Shri Rajendra appellant No. 2 is a Bachelor of  Engi- neering (Mech.) from Karnataka University and secured  66.40 marks in the qualifying examination. The Govt. of  Karnataka by  notification dated 4th April, 1985 invited  applications for recruitment of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and (Mech.)  for the  Public Works Deptt. The selections were to be  made  on the  basis of marks obtained in the  qualifying  examination and  marks secured in the interview, in accordance with  the K.S.C.S.  (Direct  Recruitment  By  Selection)  Rules,  1973 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules’). According to these Rules  total marks for qualifying examination were  kept  at 100 and 50 for interview. Thus the marks allotted for inter- view amounted to 33.3% of the total marks. Applications were invited for 300 posts of Civil Engineers and 100  Mechanical Engineers initially and subsequently added additional  posts of  150 Civil Engineers and 10 Mechanical Engineers thus  in all  450 Civil Engineers and 110 Mechanical Engineers.  Both

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

the appellants applied for the posts of their choices in the Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka.  Appellant No.  1 secured 29.50 marks out of 50 marks in the  interview and  69.96 marks in the qualifying examination thus  in  all 99.46  marks  out of 150. The 2nd appellant  obtained  24.83 marks  in  the interview and 66.40 marks in  the  qualifying examination  thus  in all 91.23 marks out of 150.  Both  the appellants were not selected in merit as the last  candidate selected  for the above posts secured higher marks than  the appellants.  The  appellants  filed a  petition  before  the Karnataka Administrative. Tribunal challenging the Rules  on the  ground  that the percentage of marks for viva  voce  as 33.3  were  excessive and in violation of the  decisions  of this  Court. The Tribunal by its order dated 24th May,  1990 dismissed the petitions and the appellants aggrieved against the  aforesaid decision have approached this Court by  grant of special leave. It is not necessary to examine’ the matter in detail inasmuch as 50 marks for interview out of 150  are clearly in violation of the judgment of this Court in  Ashok Kumar  Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988]  Sup. S.C.R.,  657  and Mohinder Sain Garg v. State  of  Punjab  & Ors., J .T. 1990 (4) S.C., 704. On a direction given by this Court on 4th September, 1991 the record of the 496 Selection  Committee was produced before this Court  at  the time of hearing. From a perusal of the marks awarded to  the selected  candidates  it  is clear that a  large  number  of candidates  have been selected though they had secured  much lesser marks than the appellants in the qualifying  examina- tion but had secured very high marks in the viva voce out of 50  marks  kept  for this purpose. Thus it  is  an  admitted position  that if the marks for interview were kept even  at 15% of the total marks and merit list is prepared according- ly then both the appellants were bound to be selected and  a large  number  of selected candidates would have  gone  much lower in the merit list than the appellants. In view of  the fact that the result of the impugned selections was declared in 1987 and the selected candidates have already joined  the posts,  we do not consider it just and proper to  quash  the selections on the above ground. Further the selections  were made  according  to the Rules of 1973 and this  practice  is being consistently followed for the last 17 years and  there is  no  allegation  of any malafides in the  matter  of  the impugned  selections.  However,  the Rules  are  clearly  in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above referred  cases  and in case the marks for viva  voce  would have been kept say at 15% of the total marks, the appellants before  us were bound to be selected on the basis  of  marks secured  by  them in interview, calculated on the  basis  of converting the same to 15% of the total marks.     We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the  respond- ents to give appointment to the appellant Ashok alias Soman- na  Gowda on the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) and  appel- lant  Rajendra  on the post of Asstt.  Engineer  (Mech.)  in Public Works Department within a period of two months of the communication of this order in case the appellants are found suitable  in  all  other respects according  to  the  Rules. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnata- ka pointed out that there are many other candidates who  had secured  much higher marks than the appellants in  case  the above criteria is applied for selection. In view of the fact that appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as  in 1987 and only the present appellants  had  approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be  considered as they never approached for  redress  within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

reasonable  time. We are thus inclined to grant relief  only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making griev- ance  and approaching the Tribunal in time. Learned  counsel for  the State also submitted that the State Government  has already  framed  new rules, and as such we do  not  find  it necessary to quash the Rules under which the present  selec- tions were made as they are no longer in existence. No order as to costs. G.N.                                                  Appeal allowed. 497