FOREWORD

It is really a matter of pride and privilege for me to be at the helm of affairs of the
Karnataka Public Service Commission while bringing out the III Volume of Compilation
of Judgments pertaining to Public Service Commissions. The feeling is one of achieving
a hat-trick after bringing out Volumes I & II of Compilation of Judgments. Realising the
usefulness and utility of Volumes I & II of Compilation of Judgments, the 11th National
Conference of Chairpersons of State Public Service Commissions held on 8th and 9th of
January 2009 at Thiruvananthapuram, passed a resolution and entrusted the task of
bringing out Volume-III of Compilation of Judgments having a bearing on the role and
functioning of the Public Service Commissions to the Karnataka Public Service
Commission. I sincerely thank them for reposing faith in Karnataka Public Service
Commission.

As in the case of earlier two volumes extreme care has been taken to include in
this Compilation judgments covering a wide range of issues of facts as well as law that
confront the Public Service Commissions in their role and functioning as Selecting
Authorities.

The judgments are arranged in chronological order first pertaining to Union

Public Service Commission and then State Public Service Commissions in alphabetical
order as indicated in the Index. To facilitate easy and quick reference, Public Service
Commission-wise Index and Subject-wise Index are given. Full texts of judgments
reported in Law Journals which have all India circulation are not printed but only citation
with gist of each judgment is given as in Volumes-I & II of Compilation.

The 11th National Conference of Chairpersons of State Public Service

Commissions held on 8th and 9th January 2009 at Thiruvananthapuram, had passed a
resolution to constitute a Legal Committee consisting of Chairpersons of 8 State Public
Service Commissions as Members to find out the reasons for increase in the number of
court cases and to suggest ways and means to reduce the court cases. I am glad to
mention that this Legal Committee has submitted its Report which is included under
Journal Section of this III Volume of Compilation.

I thank the Chairman of the 11th National Conference of State Public Service
Commissions Prof. [Link] and my brother/sister Chairpersons of various Public
service Commissions for having entrusted the responsibility of bringing out Volume-III
of Compilation also. I also thank Union Public Service Commission and various State
Public Service Commissions who have assisted the Karnataka Public Service
Commission in bringing out this Compilation by sending copies of judgments relating to
the functioning of Public Service Commissions.

I thank Prof. [Link], Chairman of Union Public Service Commission and

Chairman of 12th National Conference of State Public Service Commission for having
graciously agreed and released this book on the occasion of the 12th National Conference
held on 20th and 21st February 2010 at the Union Public Service Commission premises,
New Delhi.

(GONAL BHIMAPPA)
Chairman,
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Bangalore.
 INDEX

Page Nos.

1. Union Public Service Commission 1 to 79

2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission 80 to 163
3. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission 164 to 181
4. Assam Public Service Commission 182 to 217
5. Chattisgarh Public Service Commission 218 to 225
6. Gujarat Public Service Commission 226 to 239
7. Haryana Public Service Commission 240 to 259
8. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission 260 to 266
9. Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission 267 to 351
10. Jharkhand Public Service Commission 352 to 385
11. Karnataka Public Service Commission 386 to 572
12. Kerala Public Service Commission 573 to 589
13. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission 590 to 704
14. Maharashtra Public Service Commission 705 to 717
15. Manipur Public Service Commission 718 to 727
16. Mizoram Public Service Commission 728 to 790
17. Orissa Public Service Commission 791 to 840
18. Punjab Public Service Commission 841 to 849
19. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 850 to 880
20. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission 881 to 932
21. Tripura Public Service Commission 933 to 954
22. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission 955 to 987
23. Uttaranchal Public Service Commission 988 to 1000
24. West Bengal Public Service Commission 1001 to 1015
 SUBJECT INDEX
Subject-wise classification of various Judgments pertaining to PSCs

Subject Page No.

Chapter-I Examination
(i) Whether a candidate can change the information furnished 2&3
in the application form at a subsequent stage? - No.
Instruction clearly shows that a candidate cannot change
the entries made in the application form at any subsequent
stage.
(ii) Petitioner’s candidature for Civil Services (Preliminary) 4&5
Examination, 2002, was rejected as he had not indicated
his educational qualification in the application form – This
being contrary to Instruction No.4 rejection is upheld.
(iii) Applicant unsuccessful in Civil Services Examination 6&7
(Preliminary) 2003 alleged that his answers have been
wrongly evaluated. He was permitted to appear for main
examination as per interim order in which he secured 264
marks as against cutoff marks of 281. Hence, petition was
dismissed at preliminary stage.
(iv) Service matters include process of selection for service - 17 to 20
Competitive Examination is a part of process of
recruitment. Service matters would include not only the
conditions of service but also other incidental and ancillary
matters.
(v) Seeking quashing of the result that all options marked by 61 & 62
the applicant are correct was not allowed
(vi) Whether claim of the applicant that his application sent 66 & 67
through Courier was refused can be accepted in the
absence of any documents? - No
(vii) Whether UPSC can claim privilege in respect of 68 to 70
information disclosed to the Tribunal? – No. Though
information regarding cutoff marks is confidential for
UPSC it cannot be considered by the Tribunal as
confidential for deciding the case.
(viii) Whether a candidate who has been debarred to appear for 78 & 79
Civil Services Examination for suppressing the number of
times already appeared can take shelter on the subsequent
amendment relaxing the number of attempts? – No
(ix) Whether preliminary examination has to be held de novo 219 to 222
for allegation that some model answers are wrong etc.? –
No - The decision of the Commission to cancel the
examination and to conduct the same de novo cannot be
sustained.
(x) Supply of details of marks to non selected candidates - 249 & 250
When Rules do not provide for supplying details of marks
to a non selected candidate he is not entitled to seek the
said information.
(xi) Objective type Examination – Errors in questions/answers; 315 to 350
spelling/printing mistakes in question paper – whether re-
examination has to be done? – No. Such questions can be
deleted and marks for those questions can be distributed on
pro rata basis to the remaining correct questions while
evaluating the answer sheets.
(xii) Making false allegation of tampering of marks by the 351
candidate against authorities entails imposition of penalty.
(xiii) Petitioners who did not receive admit cards for 364 & 365
examination due to lapse of the Commission –
Commission directed to issue provisional admit cards.
(xiv) Petitioners were not permitted to appear for examination to 370 & 371
the post of Primary Trained Teachers as their applications
were not forwarded to the Commission by respondents 2, 3
and 4 – Since the examination was already held the Court
dismissed the writ petition.
(xv) Petitioner was a candidate for 5 posts of [Link] 372 to 375
(Mechanical) in the Dept. of Public Health Engineering
(P.H.E.D.) advertised in 2003 – Subsequently 8 posts of
Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in Water Resources
Department was advertised in 2005 for which the petitioner
was not a candidate – Common written test was held –
Since candidates applied for both the advertisements were
asked to opt either of the 2 posts – Court dismissed the writ
petition challenging the Corrigendum.
(xvi) Whether a candidate can seek postponement of 392
examination on the ground that he has to be in home town
to cast vote in a Gram Panchayat Election? - No
(xvii) Violation of Instructions to Candidates - The instructions 715 to 717
must be followed in their letter and spirit.
(xviii) Orissa Civil Service Examination – Unsuccessful candidate 815 to 819
challenged his non selection on the ground that Public
Administration papers were evaluated by teachers of
Political Science - Court considering the opinion of Head
of Department of Utkal University that
Professors/Readers/Senior Lecturer of Political Science are
competent to evaluate the answer scripts of both papers of
Public Administration under the syllabi, of Orissa P.S.C.
(xix) Whether instructions to candidates in the 900 to 914
notification/application form are mandatory? – Yes. If the
request of the candidates for rectifying the defects in the
applications is permitted, the selection schedule and the
process of examinations cannot be adhered to.
(xx) Whether scaling of marks is contrary to the Rules? – Yes. 956 to 985
The marks assigned by the examiner are not necessarily the
marks finally awarded to a candidate - If there is any error
in the marks awarded by the examiner it can always be
corrected by the Commission and the corrected marks will
be ‘the final marks awarded to the candidate’ - ’Valuation’
is a process which does not end on marks being awarded
by an Examiner - Award of marks by the Examiner is only
one stage of the process of valuation.
(xxi) Whether remedial action taken by the Commission 986 & 987
regarding the errors in the questions/key answers as per the
recommendation of the expert Committee can be accepted?
– Yes.
Chapter-II Re-examination and Re-valuation of answer scripts
(i) When there are no rules which permitted re-examination 59 & 60
and re-evaluation of answer scripts a candidate cannot be
permitted to peruse the answer sheets.
(ii) In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation no 401 & 402
candidate has got any right to ask for re-evaluation of
answer scripts - In OMR method, there is no question of
any manual correction - It is fully computerised valuation.
(iii) In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer 451 to 453
books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination
 has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-
evaluation of his marks.
Chapter-III Qualification
(i) Experience - Short listing of candidates for interview - 47 to 52
Even if there is no rule providing for short listing nor any
mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications,
the Selection Body can resort to a short listing procedure if
there are a large number of candidates.
(ii) When an advertisement mentions a particular qualification 197 to 204
and appointment made in disregard of the same is not a
matter only between the Appointing Authority and the
appointee concerned. The aggrieved were all those who
have similar or better qualifications than the appointee.
(iii) Meaning and effect of preferential qualification - 205 to 217
Preference in the context of all such competitive scheme of
selection would only mean that other things being
qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the
additional qualification have to be preferred.
(iv) When the Special Recruitment Rules are silent as to 227 to 236
whether experience has to be gained before or after
acquiring the basic qualification General Recruitment
Rules providing that experience should be computed from
the date of acquiring the basic qualification will prevail.
(v) It is settled proposition of law that once a particular 241 to 245
qualification is prescribed appointment has to be made
strictly in accordance with law.
(vi) Whether Rule 8 of Statutory Rules prescribing method of 303 to 314
recruitment prevails over Rule 51 of J&K PSC (Business
and Procedure) Rules 1980? – Yes. Higher qualification
other than basic qualification prescribed for the post would
evidently mean the department of superspeciality for which
the appointment was made and not any other
superspeciality.
(vii) It is for the State or employer to prescribe qualification and 357 to 360
other eligibility criteria for recruitment.
(viii) The question as to what can constitute the necessary 399 & 400
qualification for filling up the post and candidates
possessing Diploma from which particular university are
required is a matter for evaluation by the
appointing/recruiting authority and not a matter for
evaluation by the Court.
(ix) Equivalence of qualification - In the absence of any 407 to 409
declaration by a competent authority regarding equivalence
of qualification possessed by applicants Commission was
justified in not considering the claim of the applicants.
(x) Whether candidates possessing higher qualification than 435 to 440
qualification prescribed under C&R Rules are eligible to
participate in selection process? – Yes. The qualification
prescribed in the C&R Rules are only minimum
qualifications – Therefore, there is no restriction for
participation and selection of persons who possess higher
qualifications in the same subject.
(xi) Whether Master’s Degree obtained through ‘Open 563 to 572
University Scheme’ without passing Bachelor’s Degree is
equivalent to Bachelor’s Degree prescribed for recruitment
under State Civil Services? – No
(xii) Whether PSC can disqualify on the ground that Bachelor 581 to 584
Degree possessed by the candidate was through Distance
 education (correspondence course) and not through regular
course? – No. P.S.C. should conform to the rules and
regulations on the subject and cannot impose its own
policy decision in a matter beyond its purview.
(xiii) Whether experience gained before acquiring the basic 585 to
qualification can be counted? – No 589
(xiv) Whether acquisition of qualification prescribed for the post 610 to 627
after the notification before selection/appointment is
sufficient? - No. Study leave taken to do M.E. cannot be
treated as experience in teaching/research work/practical
prescribed for the post.
(xv) Whether [Link]. in Chemistry from I.I.T. Kanpur possessed 673 to 676
by the applicant is equivalent to [Link]. in Physical
Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry prescribed for the
post? - Tribunal directed the Commission to consider the
case of the applicant on the basis of syllabus of I.I.T.
Kanpur and Indore University.
(xvi) Equivalence - NCTE being expert body created under 866 to 876
NCTE Act which alone can prescribe standard of education
particularly teachers education and the State Government
is under obligation to frame its rules in conformity with the
qualifications for teachers in Educational Institutions.
Chapter-IV Recruitment
(i) Effect of amendment to procedural law to on going 81 to 97
selection process whether retrospective or prospective? –
Retrospective unless specifically made prospective.
(ii) When the authorities are filling up the vacancies to be 98 to 104
filled in by promotees, they are bound to fill up the
vacancies, meant for direct recruitment also.
(iii) Whether mandamus can be issued to notify all vacant posts 118 to 125
intended for direct recruitment? - No
(iv) Whether eligibility criteria can be reduced contrary to the 126 to 142
Rules? – No. Government Order dated 30.4.2005 reducing
the qualifying marks from 66 to 61 to allow more
candidates for the main examination violated the norm of
1:5 for admitting the candidates for main examination and
hence invalid.
(v) Group-I Services Recruitment – As against 19 posts of 143 to 148
D.S.P. notified Commission confined selection to 10 posts
as directed by the Government. Tribunal directed to fill 9
posts which order has been upheld by the Supreme Court
in S.L.P. filed by the State with the observation that
mistake cannot be perpetuated only because the
Commission will have to undertake the selection process
again.
(vi) Recruitment to Group-I Services - The ratio for admission 149 to 151
to Main examination is 1:50. Once a person falls beyond
the said ratio, he is not qualified for further process of
selection as held by the Supreme Court.
(vii) Recruitment of Group-I Services - Reserved category 152 to 163
candidate selected on the basis of his own merit in open
competition will not be counted against the quota reserved
for that category - He will be treated as open competition
candidate.
(viii) When challenge is made by unsuccessful candidates who 168 to 172
appeared in the selection process but were unsuccessful is
not to be entertained.
(ix) Whether selection in excess of number of posts advertised 183 to 196
 is valid? – No - Vacant posts arising or expected should be
notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to
be considered for their selection in accordance with their
merit - Appointing persons from the waiting list to the
vacancies arisen subsequently without being notified is
unconstitutional.
(x) Selection by conducting interviews - Whether allegation 205 to 217
with regard to conduct of interview tenable? – No -
Regarding the allegation that select list has not been
published in the newspaper as per Rules, it is only
irregularity and not illegality - Merely because some of the
selected candidates are relatives of the Ministers and
politicians by itself cannot lead to the inference that
selection is vitiated.
(xi) Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied 246 to 248
Services and Other Services, Common/Combined
Examination Act (4 of 2002), S. 1 – Validity – Act
repealing circulars, basis of Supreme Court decisions in
AIR 1999 SC 1701 : 1999 AIR SCW 1327 : 1999 Lab IC
1838 (Virender [Link]’s case) and [Link].7422 of
1999, D/- 9-11-2000 (reported in 2002 (10)SCC 549)
(Sandeep Singh’s case) – Not ultra vires, except to the
extent it takes away appointments already made in
implementation of Supreme Court decision much before
enforcement of Act.
(xii) Whether rounding of marks permissible – No. It may be a 253 to 256
case of extreme hardship but no relaxation against the rules
is possible.
(xiii) Quota rule as between direct recruits and promotees - Can 268 to 302
promotees to Gazetted Service avoid consultation with
Public Service Commission? – No. Direct recruits cannot
claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before
their selection.
(xiv) Fixing of eligibility criteria is the prerogative of the 356
Government and the Court cannot interfere with the same.
(xv) Having allowed themselves to be interviewed in 376 to 385
accordance with the stipulated selection criteria the same
candidates cannot be allowed to challenge the selection
process on their having been declared unsuccessful at the
test.
(xvi) Whether notification can contain instructions which are not 387 to 391
provided for in the Rules? – Yes, as long as they are in
accordance with the rules.
(xvii) Applicants claiming to have applied for the post of Motor 415 to 434
Vehicles Inspector in response to earlier notification of
1997 which was withdrawn and challenged the subsequent
notification of 2006 among others for not giving age
relaxation to the candidates who had applied earlier –
Applications dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation.
(xviii) Whether rejection of rural reservation claimed for not 441 to 443
producing the certificate in requisite form within the time
prescribed is correct? – Yes
(xix) Writ Petition filed against KAT order dated 11.4.2007 444 to 450
(pages 442 to 461 of this Compilation) is dismissed
holding that Govt. is entitled to conduct selection in
accordance with the changed rules and make final
recruitment - No candidate acquires any vested right
against the State - The State is entitled to withdraw the
notification by which it had previously notified recruitment
 and issue fresh notification as per amended rules.
(xx) Whether the Commission can rectify the mistake regarding 464 to 478
production of reservation certificates after the provisional
select list is published? – Yes. Statutory provisions need to
be up held and estoppel cannot be allowed to come in its
way - An authority has inherent power to correct
inadvertent mistake.
(xxi) Whether non prescription of qualification or service for in- 481 to 559
service candidates vitiates the Rules – No. In-service
means all those who are in the service of the Department
including probationers - Applicants having participated in
the selection process not entitled to challenge the
Notification.
(xxii) Whether recruitment is bad for non-mentioning of date of 560 to 562
recruitment, number and date of Notification in the
Information Booklet? – No. An Advocate is an Officer of
the Court he should advise his clients to refrain from filing
frivolous case.
(xxiii) Whether Commission can prescribe additional criteria for 628 to 638
selection apart from the criteria prescribed under the
Recruitment Rules and whether the Commission can
change additional criteria at a later stage of the selection? -
No. In view of Rule 12 which prescribes only interview
prescribing written examination by fixing minimum marks
in each paper and fixing minimum marks at interview not
permissible.
(xxiv) Whether selection and appointment of a person included in 639 to 646
the reserve list against a future vacancy is valid after the
selection process has come to an end after exhausting the
select list? - No. Once the select list is made, submitted
by the Commission and persons therein appointed against
the posts notified, not only the selection process but also
the select list comes to an end. The selection process is
required to be repeated if subsequent vacancies are to be
filled by direct recruitment. Considered from this view,
the “reserve list” cannot be treated to be the “select list”.
(xxv) Whether selection under old Rules is affected by 668 to 672
subsequent amendment? – No. Since the process of
selection had commenced under the unamended rules, the
rights of the petitioners have to be decided only in
accordance with the unamended rules.
(xxvi) Petitioner assailed selection on the ground that revaluation 691 to 694
of second paper ordered by the Commission was contrary
to the Rules - Revaluation justified as some of the
candidates while writing model order/judgment in second
paper mentioned their names thereby making their identity
possible – Hence revaluation was ordered in consultation
with High Court.
(xxvii) Desirability of conducting both written test and oral 695 to 704
interview - Among others petitioners alleged that the Rules
were ultra vires as no selection could be made only on the
basis of interview ignoring the marks obtained in the
written examination and/or academic qualification –
Supreme Court held that the marks obtained by the
candidates in the written examination should have been
taken into consideration and directed to consider the
desirability of amending the Rules suitably.
(xxviii) Marks for viva-voce – Awarding of 20% marks for viva- 706 to 711
voce is arbitrary in view of Supreme Court decision fixing
 12.2% of total marks for viva-voce test.
(xxix) Without making selected candidates as parties writ petition 712 to 714
seeking quashing of select list not maintainable - It is the
basic principle of law that when the appointment of any
person is questioned that person is a necessary party.
(xxx) Whether normal Recruitment Rules are applicable when 773 to 778
selection by absorption is made under Special Recruitment
Rules? – No.
(xxxi) The Departments concerned are expected to determine the 792 to 802
number of posts earmarked for each category in their roster
before reporting the vacancies to G.A. Department. Before
allotting a candidate to some service the preference
indicated by him and the availability of vacancies
earmarked for his category in that service are to be
considered.
(xxxii) A cut-off date, by which all the requirements relating to 807 to 814
qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an
individual case. There may be other persons who would
have applied had they known that the date of acquiring
qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied
because they did not possess the requisite qualification on
the prescribed date.
(xxxiii) Whether the State Government can withdraw its requisition 848 & 849
to fill up the posts after the posts are advertised for
recruitment? - Yes. It is open to the State Government to
decide whether or not to fill up the vacancies available
with it and it is an issue which falls in its exclusive
domain.
(xxxiv) Reserve list - Reserve list should be operated within 6 856 to 859
months of the preparation of the original list – As per rules
requisition sent for filling up unfilled posts after 6 months
cannot be entertained.
(xxxv) Preparation of select list - Criteria for determining the 877 to 880
inter-se merit.
(xxxvi) Whether number of posts advertised can be modified? - 890 to 899
Yes. The existence of vacancies does not give legal right to
a candidate in select list to be appointed to the post - It is
open to the Government to decide how many appointments
shall be made and the mere fact that the candidate’s name
appears in the list does not entitle him to be appointed.

(xxxvii) Whether recruitment on contract basis can be resorted to 915 to 932

by issuing Executive Order when regular recruitment
process through P.S.C. under Statutory Rules is underway
on the ground that there is delay in the process? – No.
Such recruitment amounts to back door entry in public
employment.
(xxxviii) Petitioner has challenged non declaration of his result for 989 to 991
non registration at Employment Exchange – High Court
following the decision of the S.C. has directed to declare
the result if the same is withheld on the ground that his
name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange -
Supreme Court has held that the trainee would not be
required to get his name sponsored by the employment
exchange.
(xxxix) In the absence of a proper challenge against the decision of 992 to 995
the Public Service Commission to prescribe the minimum
qualifying marks for scheduled caste candidates in the
main examination, the petitioner cannot successfully
 challenge the decision of the Public Service Commission
not to call her for interview.
(xL) Whether Apprenticeship Trainee is entitled to preference to 996 to 998
be considered in terms of the decision in (1995) 2 SCC (1)?
– Yes. In the said decision the S.C. has held that other
things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given
preference over direct recruits.
(xLi) Contempt proceeding - Whether administrative instructions 1002 to
have overriding effect on the Recruitment Rules? - No. It is 1004
well settled principle of law that nothing can be imported in
the Recruitment Rules except by way of amendment under
Article 309 of the Constitution.
(xLii) This writ petition challenging the order in Contempt case 1005 to
[Link] 105/99 (pages 1002 to 1004 of this Compilation) 1008
has been dismissed upholding the decision of the Tribunal.
Chapter-V Eligibility
(i) Whether eligibility criteria can be reduced contrary to the 126 to 142
Rules? – No. Government Order dated 30.4.2005 reducing
the qualifying marks from 66 to 61 to allow more
candidates for the main examination violated the norm of
1:5 for admitting the candidates for main examination and
hence invalid.
(ii) Fixing of eligibility criteria is the prerogative of the 356
Government and the Court cannot interfere with the same.
(iii) Whether P.S.C. can revise eligibility criteria contrary to the 647 to 656
Statutory Rules? – No
(iv) Whether Condition No.4 in the advertisement that 682 to 690
candidates who have passed higher secondary or graduate
degree from any School or College in M.P. are only
eligible is valid? – No
Chapter-VI Defects in the application
(i) Admit cards were not issued to the applicants for not 366 & 367
indicating the requisite information – High Court upheld
action of the Commission holding that the applications are
contrary to the stipulations made in the advertisement.
(ii) Petitioner instead of mentioning one optional language 368 & 369
mentioned as many as 3 languages in the prescribed
column – Admit card issued admitting her to appear for
‘Bangla’ language – High Court dismissed the petition
seeking permission to appear in Khortha language in place
of ‘Bangla’ language.
(iii) Whether instructions to candidates in the 900 to 914
notification/application form are mandatory? – Yes. If the
request of the candidates for rectifying the defects in the
applications is permitted, the selection schedule and the
process of examinations cannot be adhered to.
Chapter-VII Reservation
(i) Reservation under PH category – Principles explained 105 to 111
(ii) Whether stammering is a physical disability? - No 165 to 167
(iii) Preparation of select list of candidates under unreserved 223 to 225
category and reserved category - Candidate belonging to
reserved category like SC, ST, OBC can compete with
general category candidates and on his own merit can
secure a job meant for unreserved category.
(iv) Whether a candidate can seek change of reservation 393 to 396
subsequently? - No
(v) Reservation under Ex-MP - The applicant has been 403 to 406
discharged from service prematurely as against the
 stipulated period and he has been discharged at his own
request before fulfilling the conditions. Hence, he cannot
claim the status of an Ex-serviceman.
(vi) The applicant having not claimed reservation under PDP 454 & 455
category cannot claim the same after the selection process
is over.
(vii) The claim of applicant that 10% of posts under Ex-MP 456 to 459
category would be 53 but only 28 posts were reserved has
been rejected - While making selection roster points or
reservation is required to be determined with reference to
the number of vacancies available with that particular
department and not the total number of posts to be filled up
and that is the right way to make selection to the posts.
(viii) Whether a candidate can change his reservation category at 460 to 463
the time of main examination? - No. Even if it is due to a
bona fide mistake candidate is bound by such mistake and
liable for consequences. Commission cannot be faulted for
rejecting such applications.
(ix) The purport of this Rule is that if a candidate belonging to 574 to 580
a reserved category is included in the general quota by
virtue of his merit, he is entitled to be appointed with
general candidates and his appointment cannot be adjusted
against reserved quota.
(x) A person belonging to reserved category can be selected as 691 to 694
a general candidate only when he fulfills all the conditions
necessary for such selection. He should not only secure
requisite marks but also fulfill other eligibility conditions
prescribed under G.M. category.
(xi) 3% reservation for PH candidates - There is difference 860 to 865
between vertical and horizontal reservation, reservation in
favour of disabled candidates is horizontal reservation and
as per the decision in Rajesh Kumar Daria (2007) 8 SCC
785 the position of candidates getting horizontal
reservation is to be determined in their own category.
(xii) Selection to the post of Dist. Education Officer – Non 882 to 889
selection of 1st respondent who stood 4th in the ranking list
has been upheld by the High Court by setting aside the
order of Tribunal directing petitioner to give appointment
to 1st respondent in any of the existing vacancies.
(xiii) Whether an Act providing reservation for SCs/STs can be 1009 to
altered by a notification? – No. Reservation provided for 1015
SC candidates under an Act cannot be altered by a
notification.
Chapter-VIII Age relaxation
(i) Whether a contract employee is entitled to age relaxation? 53 to 55
– No. Contract employees are not Government servants
and therefore, they are not entitled to age relaxation.
(ii) Appellant whose application was rejected as overaged has 361 to 363
sought age relaxation on the ground that examination has
been deferred for several years – writ appeal dismissed.
(iii) Considering the facts a direction by way of mandamus 397 & 398
either to relax the age limit or any such direction which
would violate the terms and conditions of the notification
cannot be given.
(iv) 2002 Amended Rules prescribing age limit are Special 410 to 414
Rules which prevail over General Recruitment Rules -
Tribunal cannot question the wisdom of the policy makers
with regard to the age limit prescribed as per Special
 Rules.
(v) When Special Rules of recruitment prescribe age limit 479 & 450
whether General Recruitment Rules prescribing the age
limit and relaxation of maximum age limit is applicable? –
No. General Recruitment Rules providing relaxation of
age to in-service candidates are not applicable.
(vi) Cutoff date for ascertaining eligibility prescribed in the 835 to 840
advertisement cannot be relaxed on a sympathetic view –
Though Government has authority to make full relaxation
of maximum age limit under the rules, age relaxation at the
time of submission of requisition to the Government and
not after the closure of date of receipt of applications and
during the course of interview.
(vii) Recruitment to the post of lecturer in Hindi - Petitioner’s 851 to 855
application was rejected as overaged – Petitioner
contended that he was within the prescribed age when the
posts were advertised earlier - Eligibility of a candidate has
to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions
of the advertisement in response to which the candidate
applies.
(viii) Petitioner a candidate for Uttaranchal Judicial Services 999 &
Civil Judge (Junior Division) challenged the rejection of 1000
his application on the ground of overage – High Court
dismissed the writ petition holding that the candidature of
the petitioner has been rightly rejected.
Chapter-IX Selection
(i) Whether an unsuccessful candidate can challenge the 63 to 65
marks awarded in interview contending that he has
answered almost all questions rightly? – No
(ii) Relaxation eligibility criteria made as per Rules - The 173 to 181
relaxation provided was general and the Commission was
empowered to do so at any stage of selection without
making it public.
(iii) Supreme Court has laid down that when two candidates are 251 & 252
equal in merit then preference is to be given to a candidate
who possesses any of the preferential qualifications.
(iv) Whether selection made by Chairman alone could be said 591 to 609
to be a selection by P.S.C.? - No. The Commission did
not delegate functions to the Chairman nor did the
Commission approve the selection - The selection of
respondent No.3 made by the Chairman, the only Member
of the Commission sitting at the interview was not a
selection done by the Public Service Commission - The
appointment of 3rd respondent was bad.
(v) Whether Chief Officer of Municipality is a Government 657 to 664
servant entitled to claim age relaxation under the Rules? –
Yes. In view of the provisions of Municipalities Act,
Rules, and General Clauses Act, Chief Municipal Officer is
a “servant” of the State Government and not “servant” of
the Municipal Council.
(vi) Preference - It was not open to the Commission to consider 665 to 667
the code number given in the advertisement ignoring the
code number given in the application form which was to be
filled in by the candidates.
(vii) The application of the applicant for promotion as Reader 677 to 681
was rejected on the ground that he had crossed 38 years of
age - There was no Recruitment Rule governing the
appointment of the Readers in Ayurvedic Colleges - Age
limit of 38 years was prescribed by the P.S.C. of its own –
 After considering the relevant rules the Tribunal allowed
the application with a direction to screen the applicant for
the post of Reader and if found suitable to treat him as
Reader.
(viii) Recruitment of 17 posts of Assistant Professor in various 934 to 954
disciplines – Only 9 posts out of 17 posts being available
for general category petitioner who stood at 16th position
not selected - Petitioner contended that single post of
Computer Science and Engineering should have been
treated as unreserved (UR) category and selected him
against the said post - Held - As posts advertised not
classified subjectwise single post of Computer Science and
Engineering cannot be treated as UR as claimed -
Wednesbury Test explained
Chapter-X Appointment
(i) Petitioners appointed to the posts of Tutor/Senior 353 to 355
Residents, Medical Officers and Senior Surgical Officer
have challenged notification for recruitment to the said
posts on regular basis initiated. Writ petition dismissed
holding that the fact that the names of the petitioners
appeared in the gradation list does not go to change the ad
hoc nature of their appointment into regular appointment.
Chapter-XI Promotion
(i) Promotion can not be given on the basis of Draft Rules 8 to 16
(ii) Whether an official who was considered for promotion by 71 to 74
DPC and decision kept in sealed cover in view of police
case can ask for promotion against vacancy of 1998-99
before police case? – No
(iii) Promotion cannot be denied for non availability of 237 to 239
Confidential Reports for which the petitioner was not
responsible.
(iv) The contention of the petitioner that he was holding the 729 to 732
post more in length deserves to be allowed preferential
treatment was rejected and writ petition dismissed - Sitting
in writ jurisdiction, the Court is concerned to examine the
selection making process and not the selection itself.
(v) Instruction 3.5(1) is a complete Code in itself governing 733 to 737
officers of Groups ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts - The decision in writ
petition holding that promotion panel has to be prepared in
the order of seniority in the feeder cadre irrespective of the
bench mark is affirmed by the Division Bench by
dismissing the writ appeal filed by the Commission.
(vi) In a claim for promotion it is a fundamental principle of 738 & 739
law that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right -
The right to promotion is not enforceable in a Court of law.
(vii) When Service Rules are silent about eligibility date O.M. 740 to 742
providing for eligibility date has to be followed.
(viii) On promotion from a junior grade to a higher or senior 743 & 744
grade either from the date of promotion order or from the
date of joining, as the case may be, the person so promoted
gets encadred in the post to which she/he is promoted –
Seniority is subject to rules will be determined according
to the date of joining the service.
(ix) Grading ‘Very Good’ being the bench mark for promotion 745 to
to the post as the petitioner secured grading of ‘Good’ only
747
as against the grading of ‘Very Good’ secured by the
selected candidates writ petition dismissed.
(x) Even though 2 posts were available for promotion in 1996- 748 to 751
97 as the said information communicated only in 1999
petitioners writ petition regarding failure to hold selection
for promotion every year has been dismissed.
(xi) Where the State lays down the procedures as to how and in 760 to 772
what manner the merit and suitability is to be judged, it is
obligatory on the part of the Commission to follow the
same in its letter and spirit.
(xii) Promotion to the post of Chief Electrical Inspector from 842 to 847
the post of Executive Engineer – Relevant rule requires
only experience and not requirement of degree - Mode of
direct recruitment could be resorted to only if no suitable
candidate is available for appointment by promotion –
Hence writ petition dismissed.
Chapter-XII Seniority
(i) Whether restoration of seniority after quashing the penalty 779 to 783
imposed on the Disciplinary Proceeding when a fresh de-
novo exercise for re-determining the entire seniority after
inviting objections from the concerned is proper? – Yes.
As the retrospective promotion is not under challenge the
consequent seniority also cannot be assailed.
(ii) Whether reasonable opportunity of being heard should be 784 to 790
given to other employees before fixation and re-fixation of
seniority position? - Yes.
Chapter-XIII Disciplinary Inquiry
(i) Consultation under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution is 21 to 29
not mandatory. It does not confer any rights on the public
servant so that the absence of consultation or any
irregularity in consultation does not afford the delinquent
Government servant a cause of action in a Court of law.
(ii) Whether acquittal in criminal case pertaining to subject 752 to 759
matter of the disciplinary proceeding bars the finding of
guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority? – No. It is
settled law that the finding of disciplinary authority cannot
be interfered with by the Court unless the finding is
perverse or based on no evidence.
(iii) It is the discretion of the appointing authority to place a 803 to 806
delinquent under suspension during the pendency of the
enquiry or not - This power cannot be exercised by the
Courts or the Tribunal - The disciplinary authority is not
expected to dispense with disciplinary inquiry under Rule
18 of CCA Rules lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior
motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an
inquiry or because of Department’s case is weak and must
fail.
(iv) Before approaching the Tribunal all the remedies available 820 to 822
to the applicant under the relevant service rules as to the
redressal of his grievance have to be exhausted. The
provision of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act
is mandatory - Submission of memorial to the Governor
shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies available.
(v) Though the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry 823 to 834
Officer, Disciplinary Authority after giving opportunity
imposed punishment – Allegation of bias etc., against the
Disciplinary Authority has been rejected holding that the
punishment awarded is based on cogent and convincing
reasons.
Chapter-XIV Right to Information
(i) Answer scripts are exempt from disclosure under Section 8 30 to 46
of R.T.I. Act.
(ii) Whether file notings containing the views and opinions of 75 to 77
various officials who have contributed to the process of the
conduct of disciplinary proceedings can be denied under
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act? - Yes
(iii) Appellant a candidate under PH quota for the post of 257 to 259
Principal (School Cadre) sought information pertaining to
selection of candidates under the said quota – Information
was refused on the ground that writ petitions were filed
both in High Court and Supreme Court – Pending decision
therein Information Commission disposed of the case
keeping the request for information in abeyance till the
decision of the competent Court.
(iv) Whether copy of evaluated answer script can be refused 261 to 266
under Section 8(1)(e) of R.T.I. Act? – Yes.
(v) The appellant has sought certified copy of marks sheet etc., 719 to 722
under R.T.I. Act – Rejection under Section 8(1)(d) of the
Act – Information Commission directed to furnish the
information holding that disclosure of information will not
harm any third party as the result of the competition has
been already announced.
(vi) There is no Fiduciary relationship between the Subject 723 to 727
Experts and the Commission so far as the examination is
concerned - As the candidate has no objection for
furnishing the information, it cannot be refused on the
ground that it is personal information.
Chapter-XV Selection by Chairman alone; Conduct of dissenting
Members of P.S.C.
(i) Whether selection made by Chairman alone could be said 591 to 609
to be a selection by P.S.C.? - No. The Commission did
not delegate functions to the Chairman nor did the
Commission approve the selection - The selection of
respondent No.3 made by the Chairman, the only Member
of the Commission sitting at the interview was not a
selection done by the Public Service Commission - The
appointment of 3rd respondent was bad.
(ii) Conduct of dissenting Members publicly criticizing the 315 to 350
majority decision of the Commission was deprecated.
Being bound by majority of opinion no member of the
group is entitled to publicly criticise the decision on the
strength of his personal views. A Member whose kin is a
candidate is not debarred from participating in the
meetings in which general policy decisions are required to
be taken. His disability is limited to his participation at the
stage where the merit of his ward has to be judged.
Chapter-XVI Review of Order
(i) Power and scope of Review - Review Application has a 56 to 58
very narrow scope and is allowed only if there is an error
apparent on the face of the record or if some new fact is
discovered after due diligence. No scope of fresh grounds
and fresh arguments.