http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1397 of 2001

PETITIONER:

BUDDHI NATH CHAUDHARY & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ABAHI KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/2001

BENCH:

S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan.

JUDGMENT:

[With C.A.No1398/2001 (@SLP(C) No.5288/2000) & C.A.No1399/2001 (@SLP(C)No.6228/2000)]

J U D G M E N T

RAJENDRA BABU, J.

Leave granted.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

In these cases the appellants were selected by the Bihar

Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as

Commission] for appointment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors

pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Commission on

12.5.1989. The advertisement indicated that candidates

possessing the following qualification and experience are

eligible for appointment to the said post:

Qualification:- (Required minimum technical

qualification-educational qualification).

(Ka) Matriculation (Kha) Diploma in Automobile

Engineering or Mechanical Engineering after completing three

years course would be necessary from a recognized

institution/Board/University.

(G) The diploma holder or post diploma holder in

Automobile Engineering would be preferred.

Note:- Such candidates, who have mechanic level

qualification related to Motor trade, would not be

competent.

Experience:-

(Ka) For the candidates, who after completing three

years course of Automobile Engineering have obtained

diploma, must possess three years practical experience in an

Automobile Engineering Workshop registered under the

Factories Act.

(Kha) Such candidates, who have obtained diploma in

Mechanical Engineering after completing three years course

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

compulsorily, must possess five years practical experience

in an Automobile Engineering Institution registered under

the Factories Act.

(Ga) Candidates having post diploma in Automobile

Engineering compulsorily possess two years practical work

experience in a workshop of Automobile Engineering

institution registered under the Factories Act.

When the process of selection was pending, a new rule

was introduced in Recruitment Rules requiring the person to

be selected as a Motor Vehicle Inspector to possess a

driving licence. Pursuant to the selection made by the

Commission, the appellants were appointed as Motor Vehicle

Inspectors in the year 1991 and they have continued to hold

the said posts till date.

On the ground that the selected candidates do not

possess the qualification or experience in appointment in an

appropriate automobile institution registered under the

Factories Act, 1948 or they did not possess driving licence,

their appointments were challenged by some of the candidates

who were not selected in several writ petitions. The

learned Single Judge of the High Court who dealt with these

writ petitions did not examine the contentions raised on

behalf of the writ petitioners in the necessary detail with

reference to each selected candidate but directed the

Transport Commissioner to do that exercise. On appeal, the

Division Bench of the High Court set aside the report sent

by the Transport Commissioner pursuant to the order made by

the learned Single Judge which was received during the

pendency of the appeal and directed fresh consideration of

the matter by the Transport Commissioner.

We fail to understand as to how the matter of selection

and appointment to a post could have been entrusted to the

Transport Commissioner when the Commission had been

specifically entrusted with such a job and such Commission,

which is an autonomous authority having a constitutional

status, has selected the candidates whose appointments were

in challenge. If the selection of these candidates was

improper the same should have been set aside with

appropriate directions to redo the process of selection or

at best, the High Court could have directed the Government,

which is the appointing authority, to take appropriate steps

in the matter. However, in the facts and circumstances of

this case, we need not dilate on this aspect nor do we need

to examine various elaborate contentions addressed by either

side. Suffice to say that all the selected candidates, who

are in employment, except one, possess necessary

qualification and in regard to that one excepted candidate,

it cannot be disputed that he possesses equivalent

qualification. Thus the dispute narrows down to one aspect,

that is, the selected candidates may not possess necessary

experience which is now required to be examined by the

Transport Commissioner.

The selected candidates, who have been appointed, are

now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a

decade. Now that they have worked in such posts for a long

time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite

experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of

recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise

ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous

results. Since we are disposing of these matters on

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

equitable consideration, the learned counsel for the

contesting respondents submitted that their cases for

appointment should also be considered. It is not clear

whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle

Inspectors. If that is so, unless any one or more of the

selected candidates are displaced, the cases of the

contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that

such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We

have extended equitable considerations to such selected

candidates who have worked in the post for a long period,

but the contesting respondents do not come in that class.

The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long

back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed. Such a

view can be derived from several decisions of this Court

including the decisions in Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana &

Ors., 1979 (1) SCC 168; District Collector & Chairman,

Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,

Vizianagaram & Anr. vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3)

SCC 655; and H.C.Puttaswamy & Ors. vs. The Honble Chief

Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore & Ors., 1991

Supp. (2) SCC 421. Therefore, we must let the matters lie

where they are.

In the special features of this case, we set aside the

order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. The

appeals are, therefore, allowed. No costs.

..J.

[

S. RAJENDRA BABU ]

.J. @@

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

[

S.N. PHUKAN]

February 21, 2001.