1989 (12) TMI 351 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Karnataka Public Service Commission's Notification and select list for Motor Vehicle Inspectors.
2. Impact of the amendment to the Recruitment Rules on the selection process.
3. Retrospective vs. prospective application of the amended Recruitment Rules.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Karnataka Public Service Commission's Notification and select list for Motor Vehicle Inspectors:
The appeal challenges the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's decision quashing the Karnataka Public Service Commission's Notification dated September 28, 1983, and the select list for Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The Tribunal directed the Commission to invite fresh applications per the amended Rules. The appellants, whose names were included in the select list, filed a writ petition u/s Article 32 of the Constitution for directions to the Karnataka Government to make appointments from the select list.

2. Impact of the amendment to the Recruitment Rules on the selection process:
The dispute centers on the selection and appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors regulated by the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1962. Initially, candidates with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering were eligible. However, the Rules were amended on May 4, 1987, omitting the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The Tribunal held that the selection of candidates with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was illegal post-amendment and directed fresh selections per the amended Rules.

3. Retrospective vs. prospective application of the amended Recruitment Rules:
The Supreme Court held that the amendment to the Recruitment Rules was prospective, not retrospective. The Rules did not contain any provision enforcing the amended Rules retrospectively. The appellants were qualified for selection and appointment under the Rules existing at the time of their application and scrutiny by the Commission. The Court emphasized that statutory rules are prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. The amending Rules of 1987 did not contain any express provision or necessary intendment for retrospective effect. Thus, the appellants' right to selection and appointment could not be defeated by the subsequent amendment of Rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the State Government to make appointments based on the select list prepared and finalized by the Commission. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.