http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1397  of  2001

PETITIONER: BUDDHI NATH CHAUDHARY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ABAHI KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/02/2001

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan.

JUDGMENT:

[With C.A.No1398/2001 (@SLP(C) No.5288/2000) & C.A.No1399/2001 (@SLP(C)No.6228/2000)]

J U D G M E N T

RAJENDRA BABU, J.

Leave granted. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   In 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 qualification-educational qualification).

   (Ka)   Matriculation   (Kha)   Diploma   in   Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering after completing three years   course   would  be   necessary  from  a   recognized institution/Board/University.

   (G)  The  diploma  holder  or  post  diploma  holder  in Automobile Engineering would be preferred.

   Note:-   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.

   (Kha)  Such  candidates,  who have obtained  diploma  in Mechanical  Engineering after completing three years  course

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

compulsorily,  must possess five years practical  experience in  an  Automobile Engineering Institution registered  under the Factories Act.

   (Ga)  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.

   When  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.

   On  the  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.

   We  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.

   The  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

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

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. The  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.

   In  the 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.

..J.                                                                                 [ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]

.J. @@ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII                                                                                 [ S.N. PHUKAN]

February  21, 2001.