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

PETITIONER: DR. P.N. DUBEY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Madhya Pradesh  High Court,  Jabalpur Bench, made on February 10,  1981 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 812/80. The appellants were  working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Madhya  Pradesh Veterinary Services Gazetted. The Madhya Pradesh Veterinary  Services is governed by the rules called Madhya Pradesh  Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966. The channel of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director Veterinary Service  was from  two  sources,  namely,  direct recruitment and  promotion in  the proportion  of one  is to one. An  advertisement came to be made by the Madhya Pradesh Public  Service   Commission  of   28  posts   of  Assistant Directors. The appellants had challenged the validity of the Notification and selection on the ground that the Government had, by  then decided, to provide recruitment to the post of Assistant Directors  by promotion  with 100% from the feeder cadre, namely, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. It is found, as a fact,  by the  High Court  that as  on  the  date  of  the notification, the  rules were  not amended.  Unamended Rules provide that  the  recruitment  was  to  be  made  from  two sources, namely,  direct recruitment  and by  promotion at a ratio of  one is to one. Consequently, the advertisement for recruitment of  Assistant and by promotion at a ratio of one is to  one. Consequently,  the advertisement for recruitment of Assistant  Directors by the Public Service Commission and Selection and  appointment of the challenged in this appeal. It is seen that undoubtedly though decision was taken by the Government, the  Rules have not been amended. Therefore, the advertisement made  for recruitment  of fill up the posts of Assistant Directors, by direct recruitment and consequential selection as  per the  unamended Rules  for the  50% of  the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment was in accordance with the  aforesaid Rules.  As a consequence, the view taken by the  High Court  is consistent  with the Rules. We do not find any illegality warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.