Karnati Ravi & Anr. v. Commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Kurian Joseph
R. Banumathi
Judgment Date: 2017-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Karnati Ravi
Anr.

Respondents

Commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C S N. Mohan Rao
• D. Mahesh Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Udaya Kumar Sagar
• Mrityunjai Singh
• Venkat Pillai Law Associates

Case Synopsis & Summary

This civil appeal concerns the legality of executive instructions governing the selection and appointment for the post of Deputy Surveyor, where the Rules did not prescribe a detailed selection procedure. The Supreme Court examined whether executive instructions can compensate for the absence of Rules under Article 162 of the Constitution. The appellants, who possessed the essential qualifications, participated in the selection process which included a written examination and a physical endurance test. The appellants argued that the written examination was not mandated by the Rules and that the endurance test, introduced by executive instructions, was therefore illegitimate; thus the overall procedure should be constrained by the Rules. The respondents relied on executive instructions under Article 162 to set the selection method in the absence of Rules and asserted that the written test and endurance test did not contravene any Rules since the candidates participated without objection. The Supreme Court held that even a written examination is not a procedure prescribed under the Rules; the Rules only provide essential qualifications. Consequently, in the absence of Rules, the method of selection may be supplied by executive instructions, so long as they do not conflict with the Rules. It noted that all candidates undertook the written examination and endurance test and that unsuccessful candidates subsequently challenged the endurance test. The Court concluded there was no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 162

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that since the Rules did not prescribe a written examination for Deputy Surveyor selection, the executive instructions introducing a written test and a physical endurance test cannot govern the selection, and thus the procedure cannot be challenged; the Rules provide only essential qualifications; in the absence of Rules, executive instructions under Article 162 supply the method of selection, provided they do not conflict with the Rules. Since all candidates participated in the written examination and the physical endurance test without objection, they cannot later challenge the procedure.

Contentions of Respondents

No explicit separate arguments are recorded in the provided text; the Court analyzes the legality of executive instructions under Article 162 and notes that the candidates who participated without objection cannot challenge the process.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2017] 6 S.C.R. 507 ## KARNATI RAVI& ANR. A v. COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 897 of 20 I 0) JULY20,2017 B ## [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] _Service law_ - _Selection_ - _Executive instructions_ - _Whether in the matter of selection and appointment, executive instructions_ C _pertaining to the procedure of selection, which is not prescribed under the Rules can rule the field_ - _Held: The method of selection, in the absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive instructions_ - _In the absence of the Rules, it is well within the powers of the Executive u/Art.162 of the Constitution to provide for the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection,_ D _so long as they do not come in conflict with the Rules_ - _That apart, in the instant case, all the candidates participated in the selection, both in the written examination,, though not a prescribed one, for which there was no objection, as also the physical endurance test_ - _Having participated in the se(ection without any objection, they_ E _cannot later challenge the procedure_ - _Constitution of India_ - _Art.162._ ## Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : In the instant case, even a written examination was not a procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Rules only provided the essential qualifications for the post. All the appellants appeared in the written examination. They were also subjected to a physical endurance test which they could not qualify. It was, thereafter, the unsuccessful candidates in the physical endurance test put up a challenge regarding the validity of the executive instructions whereby physical endurance test was prescribed. In the absence of the Rules, it is well within the powers of the Executive under Article 162 of the Constitution to provide for the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection, so long as they do not come in conflict with the F G H 507 508 [2017] 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A Rules. That apart, all the candi.dates participated in the selection, both in the written examination, though not a prescribed one, for which there was no objection, as also the physical endurance test. Having participated in the selection without any objection, they cannot later challenge the procedure. [Paras 5-7] [508-G-H; 509-~-C] B CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2007 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition c No. 15265 of2006 ## WITH C. A. No. 898 of 2010. C. S. N. Mohan Rao, D. Mahesh Babu, Advs. for the Appellants. D S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, M/s. Venkat Pi,ilwai Law Associates, Advs. for the Respondents. ## The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E F G KURIAN, J. I. The issue raised in these Appeals pertains to the question whether in the matter of selection and appointment, executive instructions pertaining to the procedure of selection, which is not prescribed under the Rules can rule the field. 2. The appellants participated in the selection for appointment as Deputy Surveyor. There is no dispute that all of them possessed the qualification for the post. The procedure for selection was, however, not available under the Rules and, therefore, by executive instructions, it was notified that the participants would be subjected to a written test and also a physical endurance test. 3. It is the contention of the appellants that the physical endurance test is not a test prescribed under the Rules, unlike in the case of selection of a Police Constable where it is a prescribed procedure. 4. We are afraid this contention cannot be appreciated. > 5. It may be seen that even a written examination is not a procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Rules only provide the essential qualifications for the post. The method of selection, in the H absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive instructions. All KARNATI RAVI & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.[KURIAN, J.J 509 the appellants have appeared in the written examination. They were A also subjected to a physical endurance test which they could not qualify. It is, thereafter, the unsuccessful candidates in the physical endurance test put up a challenge regarding the validity of the executive instructions whereby physical endurance test has been prescribed. 6. As we have already noted above, in the absence of the Rules, it is well within the powers of the Executive under Article 162 of the Constitution to provide for the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection, so long as they do not come in conflict with the Rules. B 7. That apart, all the candidates have participated in the selection, c both in the written examination, though not a prescribed one, for which there is no objection, as also the physical endurance test. Having participated in the selection without any objection, they cannot later challenge the procedure. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these Appeals D and the same are dismissed. Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.