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

PETITIONER: A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, HYDERABADANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. SARAT CHANDRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1990

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (2) 463        1990 SCC  (2) 669  JT 1990 (2)   143        1990 SCALE  (1)749

ACT:     Civil  Services: A.P. Police Service Rules,  1966:  Rule 5’Recruitment  to the post of Deputy Superintendent  of  Po- lice--Eligibility for-Fixation of minimum age of 21 years as on first day o f July of the year of selection--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     Rule  5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966  makes  a person  ineligible for appointment as Deputy  Superintendent of Police unless he has completed the age of 21 years on the first  day  of July of the year in which  the  selection  is made.    The  appellant Service Commission notified on August  25, 1983  a  combined examination for Grade I  Services  of  the State, to be held in November, 1983 wherein the minimum  age prescribed for selection to the post of Deputy  Superintend- ent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983 as against  18 years for other posts.     The  respondent who was 19 days short of 21 years as  on July 1, 1983 was not considered for appointment to the  post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was, however, select- ed as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He filed  a petition before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking  a direction  to  the appellant to select him to  the  post  of Deputy  Superintendent of Police, contending that  the  date for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the notifica- tion  was contrary to Rule 5 of the Police Service Rules  in as  much  as it ought to be the date of preparation  of  the list of selected candidates and not any date anterior to it. The Tribunal accepted that contention. Allowing the appeal by the Service Commission, the Court,     HELD:  The word ’selection’ occurring in Rule 5  of  the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 cannot be construed only  as the factum of preparation of the select list. [467B] The process of selection which begins with the issuance of 464 advertisement  and  continues through scrutiny  of  applica- tions, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling  for interview or viva voce, ends with preparation of the  select list  for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of  Procedure  of the  Public  Service Commission is also  indicative  of  all

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

these  steps.  When  such were the different  steps  in  the process  of selection, the minimum or maximum age for  suit- ability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed  to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the  final stage of selection is delayed, and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of  application may find themselves eliminated at the  final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and  determinate as  on  a particular date for candidates to  apply  and  for recruiting agency to scrutinise applications. [466F-467A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1147  of 1990.     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9. 1989 of the A.P. Administrative  Tribunal; Hyderabad in Representation  Peti- tion No. 3843 of 1989.     T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Appellants.     K. Madhava Reddy, D.R.K. Reddy, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwar Rao and Mudu Vijai for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K.  JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This is an appeal by the  A.P. Public  Service Commission against the decision of the  A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated September 22, 1989. The appeal raises  a  question as to the scope of Rule 5  of  the  A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966.     The  facts are not in dispute-and may be stated as  fol- lows:    The   Public   Service   Commission    issued    an Advertisement/Notification No. 18/1983 inviting applications for  selection in a Combined Competitive Examination  to  be held  in  November, 1983 at  Anantapur,  Guntur,  Hyderabad, Kakinada, Tirupathi, Visakhapatnam and Warangal Centres  for recruitment to the posts included in Grade-I Services. The 465 Notification  was published in the Gazette dated August  25, 1983. The post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was one of the posts for which applications were invited. The  respond- ent  applied  to that post as well as to  other  posts.  The minimum  age prescribed for selection to the post of  Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983, as against  18  years for other posts. The respondent  did  not complete  21  years as on July 1, 1983. He was short  by  19 days  and  his case, therefore, was not considered  for  ap- pointment  to  post of Deputy Superintendent of  Police.  He was,  however,  considered  to other posts since  it  was  a combined selection for Grade-I Services.     In 1984, the Public Service Commission conducted prelim- inary  examination  for the eligible  candidates.  In  1985, final  examination  was conducted. In 1986,  the  candidates were  called  for interview. On 27 March 1987, the  list  of selected candidates was prepared for appointment to  differ- ent  categories  of posts. The respondent  was  selected  as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.     On  15 April 1989 i.e. about two years after the  selec- tion, the respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh  Adminis- trative  Tribunal contending inter alia that the  date  ’for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the  Notification was  contrary  to Rule 5 of the A.P. Police  Service  Rules, 1966.  He  claimed that such date ought to be  the  date  of preparation  of the list of selected candidates and not  any date  anterior to it. He accordingly sought a  direction  to

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

the  Public Service Commission to select him to the post  of Deputy  SUperintendent of Police since he had satisfied  the required  minimum  age  of 21 years as on the  date  of  the select  list. The Tribunal has accepted that contention  and issued  a  direction to the State Government  to  create  an additional post as a special case and appoint the respondent as Deputy Superintendent of Police, if necessary by reducing the number of posts for recruitment for the next year.     The decision of the Tribunal has been challenged in this appeal  by  the  Public Service Commission  since  the  view expressed  therein is likely to affect the appointment of  a large number of candidates.     There is no dispute that the eligibility of a  candidate as to age for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police should be determined according to Rule 5 of the A.P.  Police Service Rules. It is, therefore, necessary to look first  at that Rule. Rule 5 so far as is relevant provides: 466 "Rule 5. Qualifications--(A) No person shall be eligible for appointment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2 by direct recruitment unless he-- (i) has completed the age of 21 years and had not  completed the age of 26 years on the first day of July of the year  in which the selection is made. XXX                         XXX                      XXX     The  Rule prescribes the minimum as well as the  maximum age  for  appointment as Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police. Minimum  age is 21 years. The candidate must have  completed 21  years on the first day of July of the year in which  the selection  is  made. He should not have  also  completed  26 years  as  on that day. The Tribunal while  construing  this Rule has observed: "According to the procedure the process of selection  begins with  the issue of the advertisement and culminates in  for- warding the list to the appointing authority. The essence of the process lies in the preparation of the list. A selection can  be  said to have been done only when the list  is  pre- pared. In this view the eligibility of the candidates as  to age has to be determined at this stage." If  the  word ’selection’ is understood in a  sense  meaning thereby  only  the final act of  selecting  candidates  with preparation of the list for appointment, then the conclusion of  the Tribunal may not be unjustified. But  round  phrases cannot  give square answers. Before accepting that  meaning, we  must see the consequences, anomalies  and  uncertainties that  it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not  dispute that  the process of selection begins with the  issuance  of advertisement  and ends with the preparation of select  list for  appointment. Indeed, it consists of various steps  like inviting  applications, scrutiny of applications,  rejection of  defective  applications  or  elimination  of  ineligible candidates,  conducting examinations, calling for  interview or   viva  voce  and  preparation  of  list  of   successful candidates for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of  the Public Service Commission is also indicative of  all these  steps.  When  such are the  different  steps  in  the process  of  selection,  the  minimum  or  maximum  age  for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to  depend  upon any fluctuating or uncertain date.  If  the final  stage  of  selection is delayed  and  more  often  it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are 467 eligible  on  the date of application  may  find  themselves eliminated  at the final stage for no fault of  theirs.  The date  to attain the minimum or maximum age must,  therefore,

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

be  specific,  and determinate as on a particular  date  for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to  scrutinise applications.  It would be, therefore, unreasonable to  con- strue  the word selection only as the factum of  preparation of the select list. Nothing so bad would have been  intended by the Rule making authority.     The appeal therefore, is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no  order as to costs. P.S.S.                                       Appeal allowed. 468