1

IN THE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2842 OF 2005

U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS  

RAJEEV KUMAR BANSAL ... RESPONDENT

WITH  C.A.NO. 2843/2005

O R D E R

C.A.NO. 2842/2005

The  appellant-U.P.  Public  Service  Commission  (UPPSC)  issued  an

advertisement dated 16.07.1999 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of

Regional  Inspectors  (Tech.)  and  Assistant  Regional  Inspectors  (Tech.)  in  U.P.

Transport Department. The respondent-Rajeev Kumar Bansal was an applicant for

both the posts. The said advertisement  prescribed the qualifications required for the

posts. There is no dispute that the respondent possessed the   requisite educational

qualification. The dispute is  in regard to the practical experience required for the

posts.  Sub-clause  (5)  of  Clause  5  of  the  advertisement  prescribing  the  practical

experience, is extracted below :

“(5) Besides  above,  for the post  of  Regional Inspector (Tech.) candidates must possess at least five years practical experience and for Asstt.  Regional Inspector (Tech.)  three years practical experience of repairs,  overhauling  and  inspection  of  Motor  Vehicles  in  a  large automobile workshop.”

The said practical experience specified in Clause 5(5) of the advertisement

2

is in terms of the provisions of the U.P.  Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service

Rules, 1980.  

2. The  applicant  claimed  that  he  had  two  and  a  half  years  experience

(10.5.1994 to 22.11.1996) as Workshop Supervisor in Hindustan Automobiles which

was admittedly a State Government approved institution and another two and a half

years experience commencing from 1.1.1997 in a large private workshop known as

Zaheer Engineering Works.

3. Nearly  six  months  after  the  said  advertisement,  the  Transport

Commissioner,  Lucknow issued  certain  guidelines  in  regard  to  what  should  be

considered  as   'large  automobile  workshops'  for  the  purpose  of  fulfilling  the

requirement  relating  to  practical  experience  mentioned  in  Clause  5(5)  of  the

advertisement. As per the said guidelines, only (i)  workshops which were approved

by  the  State  Government,  (ii)Department  of  State  Government  or  Central

Government which has its own large automobile workshop, (iii) a corporation which

has its own large workshop and (iv) workshops of authorised dealers of heavy/light

vehicles  manufacturers where repairs  and overhauling are carried on,  could  be

considered as large automobile workshops. The appellant considered the application

of the respondent with reference to the said guidelines and found that working at

Zaheer Engineering Works could not be considered as practical experience as it as not

a large automobile workshop.  As a result UPPSC  rejected the application of  the

respondent on the ground that he did not have the prescribed experience.  

4. Feeling aggrieved the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court

by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.34884 of 2000. A learned Single Judge of the

High  Court  by  judgment  dated  17.08.2000  rejected  the  writ  petition.  Feeling

3

aggrieved the respondent filed Special Appeal No.515 of 2001. The Division Bench of

the Allahabad High Court by judgment dated 16.07.2001 accepted the contention of

the respondent and allowed the appeal. It  rejected the contention of the appellant

that a large automobile workshop refers to a automobile workshop approved by the

State  Government.  The  High Court  held  that  “It  will  be  quite  unreasonable  to

construe the large automobile workshop as that workshop which was approved by the

State Government because many automobile workshops are very big and cannot be

excluded for the purposes. Moreover, the decision of the Commission cannot override

the statutory rules. That apart the advertisement does not also mention that the large

automobile  workshop  only  relates  to  the  workshops  approved  by  the  State

Government.”  As a consequence the Division Bench directed the UPPSC to consider

the case of the respondent for appointment afresh by taking into account the period

of  service/experience  of  the  respondent  herein  in  large  automobile  workshops

meaning thereby any large automobile workshops approved by the State Government

or in the private sector.  

5. The appellant purported to reconsider the case of the respondent in the

light of the order of the Division Bench and passed a fresh order dated 24.08.2001

whereby it again rejected the application of the respondent on the ground  that there

was no mention in the certificate that Zaheer Engineering Works was a workshop

approved by the State Government.

6. The respondent again approached the Allahabad High Court by initiating

a second round of litigation in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12615 of 2002. A learned

Single Judge of  the High Court by judgment dated 04.10.2002  allowed the writ

petition. He did not go into the question whether Zaheer Engineering Works was a

4

large automobile workshop or not.  He was of the view that having regard to the

qualification  prescribed  by  the  Central  Government  in  a  notification  dated

12.06.1989 issued under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989, prescribing

the practical experience of one year it was unnecessary for the respondent to establish

five years experience. The learned Single Judge was  of the view that the said Central

notification dated 12.6.1989 would prevail over the provisions of the U.P. Transport

(Subordinate) Technical Rules 1980. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge

was upheld  by a Division Bench and the appellant's appeal (Special Civil Appeal No.

99 of 2003) was rejected by order dated 08.07.2004.  The Division Bench also did not

go into the question whether Zaheer Automobile workshop was a large automobile

workshop, as it was also of the view that one year's experience was sufficient and the

respondent admittedly possessed such experience.

7. The  said  judgment  is  challenged  by  the  UPPSC.  It  contends  that  the

decision of the Division Bench holding that the notification dated 12.06.1989  of the

Central Government will prevail over the U.P.  Transport (Subordinate) Technical

Rules 1980 is contrary to the decision of this Court in S. Satyapal Reddy and others

vs. Government of A.P. and others, 1994(4) SCC 391.

8. A perusal of the decision of this Court in Satyapal Reddy (Supra) clearly

shows that the High Court erred in holding that the notification dated 12.06.1989 will

prevail over the State rules. However, it is not necessary to examine the said issue in

further detail,  as  this  appeal  can be  disposed  of  on facts,  with reference to  the

decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the first round of the litigation.

9. The question that was considered in the first round was whether only State

approved workshops should be considered as large automobile workshops.  The said

5

contention  of  the  Commission  based  on  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  Transport

Commissioner was expressly negatived by the Division Bench by the judgment dated

16.07.2001. The Division Bench directed the Commission to consider the case of the

respondent without reference to the requirement imposed by the guidelines.  That

judgment  attained finality as  it  was   not  challenged.   Necessarily,  therefore,  the

Commission had to decide the issue with reference to the observations made in the

said judgment.  The Commission could  not have again rejected the application on

the same ground which was negatived by the Division Bench by judgment dated

16.7.2001.   Learned  counsel  for  respondent  invited  our  attention  to  the  recent

decision of this Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. and another, 2008(2) SCALE

554, wherein this Court has observed that while making selections, the Rules of the

game cannot be altered after the game was started.  In this case the advertisement

was issued on 16.07.1999 and obviously therefore any subsequent guideline which has

effect of restricting the definition of large automobile workshops cannot be relied on

for the purpose of rejecting an application which was otherwise  acceptable, if the

normal meaning was assigned to the term  'large automobile workshop' in view of the

decision in the first round of litigation.   

10. We are informed that one post has been kept vacant in pursuance of the

interim order of the High Court passed on 01.04.2002. It is also stated that in the

written examination the  respondent  had  secured third  position  and  but  for  the

dispute relating to practical experience he would have been selected.  

11. We therefore dismiss this appeal as having no merit. The appellant shall

declare respondent's result as selected. We make it clear that our decision will not

affect any other rejection by the UPPSC which has attained finality.

6

C.A.No.2843/2005

This  appeal  is  by  an applicant  for impleadment when the  matter was

pending in the High Court in Civil Special Appeal No.99/2003. The grievance of the

appellant is that his application for impleadment was not considered by the High

Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant in this

appeal (C.A.No.2843/2005) was neither a necessary  nor a proper party and the non

consideration of his application  for impleadment cannot be said to have  caused any

prejudice. This appeal is also therefore  rejected.  

..............................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

..............................J. ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )

NEW DELHI, JUNE 23, 2008.