http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, HYDERABADANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

B. SARAT CHANDRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1990

BENCH:

SHETTY, K.J. (J)

BENCH:

SHETTY, K.J. (J)

SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:

1990 SCR (2) 463 1990 SCC (2) 669

JT 1990 (2) 143 1990 SCALE (1)749

ACT:

Civil Services: A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966: Rule

5'Recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Po-

lice--Eligibility for-Fixation of minimum age of 21 years as

on first day o f July of the year of selection--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:

Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 makes a

person ineligible for appointment as Deputy Superintendent

of Police unless he has completed the age of 21 years on the

first day of July of the year in which the selection is

made.

The appellant Service Commission notified on August 25,

1983 a combined examination for Grade I Services of the

State, to be held in November, 1983 wherein the minimum age

prescribed for selection to the post of Deputy Superintend-

ent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983 as against 18

years for other posts.

The respondent who was 19 days short of 21 years as on

July 1, 1983 was not considered for appointment to the post

of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was, however, select-

ed as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He filed a

petition before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking a

direction to the appellant to select him to the post of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, contending that the date

for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the notifica-

tion was contrary to Rule 5 of the Police Service Rules in

as much as it ought to be the date of preparation of the

list of selected candidates and not any date anterior to it.

The Tribunal accepted that contention.

Allowing the appeal by the Service Commission, the Court,

HELD: The word 'selection' occurring in Rule 5 of the

A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 cannot be construed only as

the factum of preparation of the select list. [467B]

The process of selection which begins with the issuance of

464

advertisement and continues through scrutiny of applica-

tions, rejection of defective applications or elimination of

ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for

interview or viva voce, ends with preparation of the select

list for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Public Service Commission is also indicative of all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

these steps. When such were the different steps in the

process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suit-

ability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to

depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final

stage of selection is delayed, and more often it happens for

various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date

of application may find themselves eliminated at the final

stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum

or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate

as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for

recruiting agency to scrutinise applications. [466F-467A]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1147 of

1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9. 1989 of the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal; Hyderabad in Representation Peti-

tion No. 3843 of 1989.

T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Manjula Gupta

for the Appellants.

K. Madhava Reddy, D.R.K. Reddy, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwar

Rao and Mudu Vijai for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This is an appeal by the A.P.

Public Service Commission against the decision of the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal dated September 22, 1989. The appeal

raises a question as to the scope of Rule 5 of the A.P.

Police Service Rules, 1966.

The facts are not in dispute-and may be stated as fol-

lows: The Public Service Commission issued an

Advertisement/Notification No. 18/1983 inviting applications

for selection in a Combined Competitive Examination to be

held in November, 1983 at Anantapur, Guntur, Hyderabad,

Kakinada, Tirupathi, Visakhapatnam and Warangal Centres for

recruitment to the posts included in Grade-I Services. The

465

Notification was published in the Gazette dated August 25,

1983. The post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was one of

the posts for which applications were invited. The respond-

ent applied to that post as well as to other posts. The

minimum age prescribed for selection to the post of Deputy

Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983, as

against 18 years for other posts. The respondent did not

complete 21 years as on July 1, 1983. He was short by 19

days and his case, therefore, was not considered for ap-

pointment to post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He

was, however, considered to other posts since it was a

combined selection for Grade-I Services.

In 1984, the Public Service Commission conducted prelim-

inary examination for the eligible candidates. In 1985,

final examination was conducted. In 1986, the candidates

were called for interview. On 27 March 1987, the list of

selected candidates was prepared for appointment to differ-

ent categories of posts. The respondent was selected as

Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

On 15 April 1989 i.e. about two years after the selec-

tion, the respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Adminis-

trative Tribunal contending inter alia that the date 'for

attaining the minimum age prescribed under the Notification

was contrary to Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules,

1966. He claimed that such date ought to be the date of

preparation of the list of selected candidates and not any

date anterior to it. He accordingly sought a direction to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

the Public Service Commission to select him to the post of

Deputy SUperintendent of Police since he had satisfied the

required minimum age of 21 years as on the date of the

select list. The Tribunal has accepted that contention and

issued a direction to the State Government to create an

additional post as a special case and appoint the respondent

as Deputy Superintendent of Police, if necessary by reducing

the number of posts for recruitment for the next year.

The decision of the Tribunal has been challenged in this

appeal by the Public Service Commission since the view

expressed therein is likely to affect the appointment of a

large number of candidates.

There is no dispute that the eligibility of a candidate

as to age for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police

should be determined according to Rule 5 of the A.P. Police

Service Rules. It is, therefore, necessary to look first at

that Rule. Rule 5 so far as is relevant provides:

466

"Rule 5. Qualifications--(A) No person shall be eligible for

appointment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2

by direct recruitment unless he--

(i) has completed the age of 21 years and had not completed

the age of 26 years on the first day of July of the year in

which the selection is made.

XXX XXX XXX

The Rule prescribes the minimum as well as the maximum

age for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Minimum age is 21 years. The candidate must have completed

21 years on the first day of July of the year in which the

selection is made. He should not have also completed 26

years as on that day. The Tribunal while construing this

Rule has observed:

"According to the procedure the process of selection begins

with the issue of the advertisement and culminates in for-

warding the list to the appointing authority. The essence of

the process lies in the preparation of the list. A selection

can be said to have been done only when the list is pre-

pared. In this view the eligibility of the candidates as to

age has to be determined at this stage."

If the word 'selection' is understood in a sense meaning

thereby only the final act of selecting candidates with

preparation of the list for appointment, then the conclusion

of the Tribunal may not be unjustified. But round phrases

cannot give square answers. Before accepting that meaning,

we must see the consequences, anomalies and uncertainties

that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not dispute

that the process of selection begins with the issuance of

advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list

for appointment. Indeed, it consists of various steps like

inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection

of defective applications or elimination of ineligible

candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview

or viva voce and preparation of list of successful

candidates for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure

of the Public Service Commission is also indicative of all

these steps. When such are the different steps in the

process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for

suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed

to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the

final stage of selection is delayed and more often it

happens for various reasons, the candidates who are

467

eligible on the date of application may find themselves

eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The

date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

be specific, and determinate as on a particular date for

candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise

applications. It would be, therefore, unreasonable to con-

strue the word selection only as the factum of preparation

of the select list. Nothing so bad would have been intended

by the Rule making authority.

The appeal therefore, is allowed setting aside the order

of the Tribunal.

In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order

as to costs.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed.

468