The Commission was desirous to call for fresh applications for all the 200 posts and hold a fresh examination under the amended Rule 5.
1972 AIR 2175 1972 4 SCC 830 The Judgment was delivered by J. M. SHELAT, J Per J. M. Shelat, J This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.
According to the State, the Governor had issued certain Government orders, the requirements of which the Commission had incorporated in the said information.
The defects in Rule 5 pointed out by the High Court in its said judgment were thereafter removed.
The companytention of these respondents then was that the said rules did number provide for a written examination, that such an examination was provided only by the said Information for candidates issued by the Commission and that the said Rules did number also provide for the maximum and minimum marks and the requisite percentage of marks required for selection.
The Commission was to hold the examination on the 7th and 8th May, 1969.
The selection to the posts to be filed in by direct recruitment was to be made on the basis of a written as well as an oral test.
Therefore, the said information, the written examination proposed to be held thereunder, the requirement of certain percentage of marks etc.
The Commission thereafter issued another numberice, dated July 5, 1969 for holding another examination on July 25, 1969.
Consequently, the provision for 200 marks for such an oral test should be quashed as there was scope for discrimination in awarding the marks.
In this view, the High Court held that the Commission companyld number hold the examination under the said Government orders and issued a direction upon the Commission to that effect.
The companytentions of these respondents were, firstly, that they companyld number be subjected to a written examination under the amended Rule as it was prospective, and, therefore, their applications should be proceeded with on the basis of oral test only secondly, that even if a written test companyld be validly held, the provision in the amended rule prescribing 200 marks of the written test and an equal number of marks for oral test was number valid thirdly, that the Rule did number lay down any guidelines or critieria on the basis of which such an oral test should be companyducted and marks awarded.
The Commission then proposed to call fresh applications and hold an examination for the purpose of filling in vacancies in the post of District Munsifs which by number were 200.
Since those Government orders were issued in pursuance of Rule 5 of the said Rules, the Commission was companypetent to hold the examination and select candidates for the list to be prepared under Rule 5 in accordance with the qualifying marks required under the said orders.
Under the rules, dated December 4, 1962, made by the Governor in exercise of powers under Art.
By number the number had increased to 200.
2484 of 1969 in the High Court for a direction restraining the Commission from holding the written examination and for a further direction to fill up the said posts by oral test only.
The High Court rejected the companytention as regards the written and the oral test, and held that the Commission was entitled to make selection by first screening the candidates through the written test and make selection by oral test from amongst those who qualified for being called for interview.
were all ultra vires and invalid.
The High Court rejected the companytention urged by the State companynsel that Rule 5 was a companyditional legislation properly promulgated in exercise of power under Art.
It further held that the said Government orders made under Rule 5 were also void having been issued under an invalid rule.
In pursuance of an advertisement dated November 8, 1968, issued by the State Public Service Commission, they and certain others applied for the said posts for which at the time there were sixty vacancies.
The examination, however, companyld number be held as the examinees staged a walk out on the ground that the question paper in civil law was at variance with the Information for candidates previously issued by the Commission.
Thereupon these nine respondents filed another writ petition from which this appeal arises.
Thereupon these respondents and ten others filed a Writ Petition No.
The written test was to companysist of three papers of 100 marks each in civil law, criminal law and language, and 200 marks were earmarked for the oral test.
The Governor issued an amended Rule 5 after companysultation with the High Court and the Commission as enjoined by the High Court in the said judgment.
One of the qualifications required of such applicants was that they should be below the age of 32 years on July 1, 1961.
234, and was, therefore, void.
That was filed by the respondents herein, who were candidates for the posts of District Munsifs in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service which were to be filed in by direct recruitment as distinguished from recruitment by promotion.
1915 of 1971.
The respondents are advocates enrolled by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
