KARNATI RAVI& ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.

                        [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)                   B
                          JULY20,2017
       [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       F
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    G
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
                                                                     H
                               507
508             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 6 S.C.R.


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
              KURIAN, J. I. The issue raised in these Appeals pertains to
      the question whether in the matter of selection and appointment, executive
 E    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
 F
      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.
 G
               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                                      509
 SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.[KURIAN, J.J

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,           B
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.
         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.