Holding

A government order is prospective unless it expressly contains a saving clause; therefore, paragraph 11 of the 9 July 1975 order saved the pending Tehsildar selection advertised before its commencement, making the State Government’s direction to re‑prepare the list illegal.

Summary

The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification on 23 May 1975 for recruitment of 50 Tehsildars, specifying reservation percentages and stating that selection would be made in accordance with the then‑existing rules. The Commission prepared a select list using the procedure laid down in the Government Order of 6 September 1969, but the State Government, invoking a later Government Order dated 9 July 1975 which altered reservation percentages and the mode of selection, directed the Commission on 23 April 1976 to prepare a fresh list. The appellants, whose names appeared in the original list but not in the revised list, challenged the validity of the 23‑April‑1976 order and the revised list, arguing that the 9 July 1975 order could not be applied to a recruitment process already commenced. The Supreme Court held that a government order is prospective unless it expressly contains a saving clause, and paragraph 11 of the 9 July 1975 order saved pending selections that had already been advertised, thereby rendering the State Government’s direction illegal. Consequently, the original list prepared under the 1969 order was deemed valid, and the Court ordered the appointment of the appellants to the Tehsildar posts, with retrospective effect or creation of super‑numerary posts if vacancies were unavailable. The Court also clarified the principles governing retrospective application of amended recruitment rules and the vested right of candidates to be considered under the terms of the advertisement.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Order dated 9 July 1975 superseded the earlier Government Order of 6 September 1969 for the pending Tehsildar recruitment.
Whether paragraph 11 of the 9 July 1975 order saved the selection already advertised and thus barred the State Government’s direction to prepare a fresh list.
Whether a recruitment rule or government order has retrospective effect and can be applied to a selection process already commenced.
Whether the State Government’s order of 23 April 1976 directing preparation of a revised list was ultra vires.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 16(1), s. Article 16(4), s. Article 309

Subjects

recruitmentreservationgovernment orderretrospective effectselection listvested rightspublic service commissionconstitutional lawArticle 16Article 309

Judgment

N.T. BEVIN KATTI ETC.
A
v.
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND 01\S.

MARCH 30, 1990
....

[K.N. SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] B

Karnataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars) Recruitment
Special Rules, 1975: Preparation of select list for appointment of
Tehsildars-Service Commission-Whether to follow Government
~ Order dated September 6, 1969 or July, 9, 1975.

The Karnataka Public Service Commission issued a notification c
on 23rd May 1975 inviting applications from in-service candidates for
recruitment to SO posts of Tehsildars. In para 14 of the notification it
was stated that provisions of 1975 Rules, and Rules 7 to 14 of the
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I & II posts
Appointment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1966 shall mutatis 0
mutandis apply to the conduct of the competitive Examination and the
provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1957 shall apply in respect of matters for which no provision is
made in the Rules.

In preparing the select list and making reservations to the various E
categories, the Commission followed the directions and the procedure
as contained in Government Order dated 6th September 1969. The
State Government refused to approve the list and directed the Commis-
sion on 23.4. 76 to prepare the list afresh following the Government
Order dated 7th July 1975. The Commission thereupon prepared the
list afresh as per Government Order of 7th July 1975. In the revised F
list, the appellants names did not figure.

The appellants challenged the validity of the Governm~nt Order
dated 23rd April 1976 as well as the revised list and the validity of the
Government Order dated 9th July 1975 by means of writ petitions
before the High Court on a number of grounds. The appellants con- G
tended that the Government Order dated 7th July 1975 prescribing
mode of preparing the select list by making resen:ations for various
categories was inconsistent with the statutory Rule 10 of 1966 Rules,
and further the directions contained therein were violative of Articles
16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution oflndia.
H

239
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

The High Court rejected both the contentions holding that the
A
directions contained in Government Order of 9th July 1975 were not
violative of Rule 10(2) and there was no violation of Article 16 of the
Constitution. The High Court also upheld the Government Order dated
23.4. 76 directing the Commission to prepare the select list afresh in
accordanre with the mode prescribelJ vide Government Order of 9th
B July 1975.

In this Court, the appellants did not nursue their challenge to the
validity of the Government Order dated 9. 7. 75 but they assailed the
validity of Government Order dated 23.4. 76 wherein the Government t
directed the Commission to prepare a revised list in accordance with the
Government Order dated 9. 7. 75 on the ground that the Government
c Order was not applicable to the pending selection.

The appellants also urged that the mode of selection and proce-
dure for making reservations as prescribed by Government Order of
9th July 1975 was not applicable to the selection as advertisement had
D been issued in May 1975 and the process of selection had already com-
menced prior to the issue of Government Order dated 9th July 1975,
and that the revised list of successful candidates prepared by the
commission as per Government directions of 23.4. 76 was illegal and
contrary to the Rules.

E On behalf of the Respondents it was submitted that the list of
successful candidates had been prepared in accordance with Govern-
ment Order dated 9th .July 1975, the State Government was justified in
insisting upon the Commission to prepare the list afresh in accordance
with the directions contained in the aforesaid order.

F Allowing the Appeals· and setting aside the Order of the High
Court,

HELD: (1) Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for
direct recruitment to a category of posts and the advertisement ex-
pressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the exist-
G ing rules or Government Orders and if it further indicated the extent of
reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates
in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules
and Government Orders if any.

(2) Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not primarily
H depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain
the legislative intent.
N.T. BEVIN v. K.P.S.C. 241

(3) Indisputably the Government Order of 9th July 1975
A
superseded all earlier Government Orders including that of 6th
September 1969 but in para 11 it saved the selection which was pending
i.e. it saved the reservations already made for any category of post or
service in respect of which advertisement had already been issued
before the issue of Government Order dated 9th July 1975. Para ll was
in the nature of a saving clause, and the Commission rightly followed B
ttie mode of selection prescribed under the Government Order in force
prior to Government Order of 9th July 1975. The State Government
was bound to give full effect to the provisions of para 11 of Government
Order dated 9th July 1975. therefore directions contained in its order
dated 23.4. 76 were illegal. [248C-E; 249E)

4. Another aspect of the instant case is that where advertisement c
is issued for direct recruitment to a category of posts expressly stating
that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or
,...__ Government Orders and also indicates the extent of reservations in
favour of various categories, the selection of candidates must he made
in accordance with these rules and Government Order. The candidates D
who applied for selection in pursuance of the advertisement, acquired
vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the advertisement. [249E-G]

S. In case the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively
during the pendency of the selection then selection has to be made in E
accordance with the amended rules. Whether rules have retrospective
effect or not primarily d~pends upon the language of the Rules and its
construction to ascertain the legislative intent, either by express provision
or by necessary implication. If the amended Rules are not retrospective
~- in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the existing
Rules and orders in force at the time of advertisement. [249H; 250A-BI F

(6) It is a well accepted principle of construction that Statutory
Rule or Government Order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly
or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. [25ID J ·

(7) In the instant case, para 11 of the Government Order dated G
9th July 1975 made the Governments intention clear that the revised
directions which are contained in the said Government Order would not
apply to the selection in respect of which advertisement had already
been issued. Therefore the mode of selection as contained in Annexure
to the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 was not applicable to the
selection for filling 50 posts of Tehsildars pending before the Public H
Service Commission. l25JG-HJ
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

8 .. Having regard to the facts the circumstances of the case. it
A
would be expedient in the interest of justice not to interfere with the
respondents' appointment but the State Government is directed to
appoint ,the appellants on the posts of Teh'sildars with retrospective ·r-
effect. If no vacancies are available the State. Government is directed to
create supernumerary posts of Tehsildars for appointing the appellants
B against those posts. For purpose~ of S!!niority the appellants should be
placed below the last candidate appointed in .1976 but they will not lle
entitled to any back wages. [252F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. t'-·
2270-73 of 1987 & 1713/1990.
c From the Judgment & Order dated the 11.8.1978 of the
Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 4609/76, 4610/76 & 4611 of
1976.

P.P. Rao and S.R. Bhatt for the Appellants.
D
M. Veerappa for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SINGH, J, Special leave granted.
E
These appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated August 11, 1978 dismis-
sing the appellants' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging validity of the revised select list prepared by the
Karnataka Public Service Commission for appointment to the posts of
F Tehsildars.

In the State of Karnataka recruitment to the posts of Tehsildars
is regulated by the Kamataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars)
Recruitment (Special) Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975
Rules). The Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter refer-
G red to as the Commission) issued a Notification on May 23, 1975
(published on May 29, 1975) inviting applications from in-service
candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Tehsildars. Paragraph 3 of
the Notification specified details of the posts reserved for candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
classes including 10% of posts set apart for Ex-Military Personnel.
H According to the figures specified, therein, out of 50 posts of
N.T. BEVIN v. K.P.S.C. [SINGH, J .) 243

Tehsildars, 5 posts were reserved for Ex-Military Personnel, 7 posts
A
for Schedule Castes, l post for Schedule Tribes and 13 posts for other
Backward classes. Paragraph 3 of the advertisement stated that in the
event of non-availability of sufficient number of candidates belonging
to Scheduled Castes , Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes or
Ex-Military personnel, for filing to the reserved vacancies; such vacan-
cies shall be filled up as per Rules in force. The Notification further B
gave details of the written and viva voce examinations. Para 14 of the
Notification stated that the provisions of 1975 Rules and Rules 7 to 14
of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II
posts Appointment by Competitive Examination) Rules 1966 (herein-
after referred to as 1966 Rules), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the
conduct of the competitive examination and the provisions of the
Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1957 c
(hereinafter referred to as 1957 Rules) shall apply in respect of matters
for which no provision is made in the Rules . Pursuant to the advertise-
ment , the appellants who were in service of the State Government
applied for their selection and appointment to the posts of Tehsildars.
After the written examination and viva voce test the Commission 0
finalised the list of successful candidates and published the same in the
Karnataka Gazette dated March 18, 1976. The Commission also
notified in additional list of successful candidates for appointment to
the posts of Tehsildars in accordance with 1975 Rules, which included
the names of the appellants. In preparing the select list and making
reservation to the various categories, the Commission followed tbe E
directions and the procedure as contained in the Government Order
dated 6th .S eptember 1969. The State Government refused to approve
the list prepared by the Commission as' in its opinion the reservation
for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes
should have been made in accordance with the directions and proce-
dure contained in the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. The F
State Government by its order dated 23rd April 1976 directed the
Commission to prepare a fresh list of successful candidates by making
reservations in accordance with the procedure contained in the
Government order dated 9th July 1975. Pursuant to the directions of
the State Government the Commission prepared the select list afresh ,
after making reservations in accordance with the procedure prescribed G
by the Government Order dated 9th July 1975, and published the same
on 27th May 1976. The appellants' names did not figure .in the revised
list of candidates. The appellants challenged validity of the Govern-
ment Order dated 23rd April 1976 as well as the revised list prepared
by the Commission and also the validity of the Government Order
dated 9th July 1975, by means of writ petitions before the High Court H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19901 2 S.C.R.

A on a number of grounds. A Division Bench of the High Court by its
order dated llth August 1978 dismissed the petitions. Hence these
appeals.

The appellants had challenged validity of the Government Order
dated 9th July 1975_, prescribing mode for preparing the select list by
B making reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward classes, on the ground that the same was inconsistent with
the statutory Rule 10 of 1966 Rules and further on the ground that the
directions contained therein were violative of Articles 16(1) and 16(4)
of the Constitution of India. The High Court rejected both the conten-
tions holding that the directions contained in the Government Order
dated 9th July 1975 were not violative of Rule 10(2) and there was no
c violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the
Government Order dated 23rd April 1976 directing the Commission to
prepare the select list afresh in accordance with the mode prescribed
under the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. Learned counsel for
the appellants did not pursue the challenge relating to the validity of
0 the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 before us instead he
assailed the validity of the State Government's Order dated 23rd April
1976 directing the Commission to prepare a revised list in accordance
with the Government Order dated 9th July 1975, on the ground that
that Government Order was not applicable to the selection.

E Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Commission
had rightly prepared the list of successful candidates published on 18th
May 1976 in accordance with the directions contained in the Govern-
ment Order dated 6th September 1969 by making reservation of posts
of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes but
the State Government wrongly refused to approve the said list. He
F urged that the mode of selection and procedure for making reservation
as prescribed by the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 was not
applicable to the selection as advertisement had been issued in May
19-75, and the process of selection had already commenced prior to the
issue of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. The revised list of
successful candidates prepared by the Commission pursuant to the
G Government's directions dated 23rd April 1976 was illegal and con-
trary -to the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the Government Order dated 9th July .1975 prescribed mode of selec-
tion and it also prescribed procedure for making reservations for
Scheduled Castes , Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes in
supersession of the earlier Government Order including the Govern~
H ment Order dated 6th September 1969 therefo~e the Commission was
N.T. BEVIN v. K.P.S.C. (SINGH, J.j 245

found to follow the proce9ure as prescribed in the aforesaid order in
preparing the select list. Since the list of successful candidates had not A
been prepared in accordance with the Government Order dated 9th
July 1975 the State Government was justified in insisting upon the
Commission to prepare the list afresh in accordance with the directions
contained in the aforesaid Government Order.
B
The question which requires determination is, which of the two
Government Orders, namely, 6th September 1969 and 9th July 1975,
the Commission was required to be followed in preparing the select list
for appointment to the posts of Tehsildars as both the Government
Orders contained directions for making reservations in preparing the
select list. In order to determine the question, it would be necessary to
refer to the directions contained in the two Government Orders. There c
is no dispute that the recruitment of in-service candidates for the 50
posts of Tehsildars in dispute, was regulated by the 1975 Rules framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution as published in the Gazette on
20th March 1975. Rule 5Jaid down that the provisions of Rules 7 to 14
of 1966 Rules shall mutatis mutandis apply to conduct of competitive D
examination and the provisions of Kamataka State Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules 1957 shall apply in respect of matters for ·
which no provision is made in the Rules. The aforesaid Rules do not
prescribe any procedure for preparation of select list or for making
reservations but in view of Rule 5 the provisions of other Rules are
made applicable. Rule 10 of the Karnataka Rules 1966 which provides E
for reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward classes was applicable in view of Rule 5 of 1975 Rules. Rule
10 of 1966 Rules is as under:

"10. Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and other backward classes-( 1) There shall be reservation F
of vacancies for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes to the extent
provided for by the Government by any general or special
orders.

(2) In filling the vacancies to reserved; candidates G
who are members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward Classes shall be considered for
appointment in the order of merit in which their names
appear in the list of successful candidates irrespective of
their relative rank as compared with other candidates and
to services according to the reservation made for them in H
such services .
-
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

"
(3) If a sufficient number of candidates who are ,;
A members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward classes are not available for filling up the
vacancies reserved for them, such vacancies shall be filled
-r- ....
up by the appointment of other candidates in the list."

B Pursuant to Clause (1) of Rule 10 of the State Government has been
providing for reservation of vacancies in favour of candidates belong-
ing to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes
by means of executive orders issued from time to time. The Govern-
ment Order dated 6th September 1969, was issued under Rule 10(1) 't
which provided that reservations for appointment to post in the State
Civil Service shall continue to be made in favour of Scheduled Tribes,
c Scheduled Castes and other Backward classes to the extent of 3%, ,..
15% and 30% respectively, where the posts are filled-up by direct
recruitment. Para 5 of the Government Order directed that the Com- .,.._
mission and other recruiting authorities shall follow the procedure -------<'
'('
prescribed in Annexure 2 to the Government Order in making reserva-
D tions and preparing list of selected candidates. There is no dispute that
the Commission had prepared the select list which was published on
18th March 1976 in accordance with the procedure laid down in Anne-
xure 2 to the Government Order dated 6th September 1969.

During the pendency of selection, the State Government issued
E the order dated 9th July 1975 revising the extent of reservation and
also prescribing a different mode of selection. Para 4 of that Govern- ~-
ment Order laid down that while making appointment to the State
Civil Services, reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Backward Tribes and other Backward classes--shall-be made to
the extent of 15%, 3%, 3% and 28% respectively, in case of direct ."'?
F recruitment. Para 6 of the Order further directed that in case of direct
recruitment where the selection is made by the Public Service Commis-
sion or any other recruiting authority, the procedure as prescribed in -..L.__
Annexure 2 to the Order shall be followed in preparing the list of
selected candidates. Annexure 2 to the Order prescribed mode of
selection, which is quite different than that contained in Annexure 2 to
G the Government Order dated 6th September 1969. It is not necessary
to go into the details of the two modes as there is no dispute that the
Commission had followed the procedure as prescribed under Anne- r·
xure 2 to the Government. Order dated 6th September 1969 and the
list, so prepared was not approved by the State Government as it was v
of the opinion that the Commission should have followed the mode of
H selection as contained in Annexure 2 to the Government Order dated
N.T. BEVIN v. K.P.S.C. (SINGH, J.] 247

9th July 1975 in preparing the select list.
A
It appears that the Commission insisted before the State Govern-
~ ment that in view of Para 11 of the Government Order dated 9th July
1975 reservations made in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward classes already notified before the issue of
Government Order dated 9th July 1975 remain unchanged therefore B
the provisions of the Government Order dated 6th September 1969
had to be followed both in regard to reservations and the mode of
selection. The State Government by its Order dated 23rd April 1976
~ refused to accept the Commission's plea and it directed the Commis-
sion to prepare a revised list in accordance with the provisions of
Government Order dated 9th July 1975. The State Government while
rejecting the Commission's plea and issuing the aforesaid direction c
made observations as under:

>. "Para 11 of the G.O. dated 9th July 1975 supersedes all the
previous Government Orders cited in the preamble to that
order, including the G.O. dated 6th September 1969. The D
same para states that the order, came into force with im-
mediate effect, but makes only one exception i.e. in the
matter of reservations already made in the cases of posts
and services, for which advertisement had been issued
prior to the coming into force of the G.O. dated 9th July
; 1975. This means that except in the matter of reservations E
~ made in posts for which applications had already been cal-
led for, in all other matters the provisions of the G.O.
dated 9th July 1975 would apply. The words are clear that
the intention is also clearly spelt out. Hence so far as the
mode of selection is concerned, the one prescribed in
~ ~

Annexure II to the G.O. dated 9th July 1975 will have to be F
followed in respect of all selections made after that date
_--'»-
either a literal construction or a harmonious construction
of the various clauses of the G. 0. dated 9th July 1975 leads
to the above conclusion. For these reasons the Commis-
sian's view that in respect of posts already advertised prior
to the issue of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975, G
the mode of selection prescribed in the earlier Government
Orders and to be followed is not acceptable to Govern-
ment."
"\.
In our opinion the State Government's view was contrary to the
directions contained in para 11 of its Order dated 9th July 1975, which H
is as under:
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

" 11. This Government Order supersedes the Government
A Order cited in the preamble and shall come into force with
immediate effect, subject to the provision that the reserva-
tion already made for any category of posts or service and
advertised before the issue of this Government Order shall
remain unchanged and shall be deemed to have been validly
8 made. All official memoranda, Circulars and instructions
issued in pursuance of the Government Orders superseded
by this Government Order shall also be deemed to have
been superseded if such instructions are contrary to the
provisions of this Government Order."
(emphasis supplied).

c Indisputably the aforesaid Government Order superseded all earlier
Government Orders on the subject including the Government Order
dated 6th September 1969 but while superseding those orders provi-
sion was made in para 11 to save the selection which was pending. Para
l l clearly stated that though earlier Government Orders laying down
D percentage of reservation required to be made in favour of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes including the
mode of selection in preparing the select list, stood superseded, but it
saved the reservations made for any category of post or service in
respect of which advertisement had already been issued before the
issue 'Of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975. This follows from
E the expression "reservations already made for any category of posts or
service and advertised before the issue of this Government Order shall
be deemed to have been validly made". These directions stipulated
that where reservations were already made and advertisement had
been issued, and the selection was pending on 9th July 1975, the same
shall remain unaffected and the selection shall be made in accordance
F with the earlier Government Orders, and the same shall be treated to
have been made validly. Para 11 is in the nature of a saving clause, its
object and purpose, was to save the selections in respect of which
proceedings had already been initiated by issuing advertisement. In
view of the Government's own directions, as contained in para 11 of its
Order the amended mode of selection was not applicable therefore the
G Commission rightly followed the mode of the selection prescribed
under the Government Order dated 6th September 1969 as admittedly
the said Order was in force prior to 9th July 1975.

The State Government's interpretation of para 11 of its Order
dated 9th July 1975 was incorrect and wrong. It failed to appreciate
H that in the instant case reservations. had already been made and
N.T. BEVIN v. K.P.S.C. [SINGH, J.] 249

notified under the advertisement published on 18th May 1975. There-
A
fore the conditions precedent contemplated in para 11 were fully
satisfied. In this view the selection made by the commission by follow-
ing the reservations and the mode of selection as prescribed under the
provisions of the Government Order dated 6th September 1969 were
deemed to have been made validly in accordance with the provisions of
para 11 of the Government Order. It is relevant to point out that the B
Government Orders dated 6th September 1969 and 9th July 1975 both
had been issued by the Government in exercise of its statutory power
under Rule 10 of 1975 Rules, making provisions for reservations and
prescribing mode of selection. A Government Order issued in exercise
of statutory powers acquires statutory force, therefore, the provisions
contained in the aforesaid Government Orders including the provi-
sions of para 11 of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 also
c
acquired statutory character. Though para 11 superseded earlier
Government Orders but it expressly saved the pending selections
where reservations were already made and advertisement had been
issued. Para 11 being statutory in nature was binding on the Govern-
ment and the Government had no authority to direct the Commission D
by means of Administrative Order to revise the Select List in accor-
dance with the amended mode of selection as prescribed under the
Government's Order dated 9th July 1975. In out opinion the State
Government was bound to give full effect to the provisions of Para 11
of the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 and therefore directions
contained in its order dated 23rd April1976 were illegal. E

There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertise-
ment is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category
of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be
... made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders,
'· and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various F
categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be. made in
accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders.
Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire
vested right for being considered for selections in accordance with the
terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the
advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candi- G
date has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and condi-
tions set out in the advertisement as his right crystalises on the date of
publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the
matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during
the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in
accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the
Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The
legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by neces-
sary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature
the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and
orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determina-
B tion of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having
regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the
relevant Rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like
to m~.ke it clear that a candidate on making application for a post
pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for
selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance
with the relevant Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement,
c he does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in
accordance with the Rules as they existed on the date of advertise-
ment. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment
of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules
are retrospective in nature.
D
In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1966] 3
SCR 682, the dispute related to the validity of appointment of As-
sistant Engineers. The Public Service Commission invited applications
by issuing Notifications for appointment to the post of Assistant
Engineers in October 1958, May 1959 and April 1960. The Commis-
E sion made selection, interviewed the candidates and sent the select list _....- -.
to the Government in October/November 1960. But before the
appointment could be made the Mysore Public Works, Engineering
Department Services (Recruitment) Rules 1960 came into force which
prescribed different provisions than those prescribed in the earlier
Notifications in pursuance whereof the Public Service Commission had )
F made the selections. The validity of the appointment made by the
Government on the basis of the selection made by the Commission was
challenged. The High Court quashed the selecton and appointments
made in pursuance thereof. On appeal before this Court, validity of
the appointment were assailed on the ground that since the appoint-
ments had been made after the amendment of the Rules the appoint-
G ments should have been made in accordance with the amended Rules.
A Constitution Bench of this Court rejected the contention holding
that since the whole procedure of issuing advertisement, holding
interviews and recommending the names having been followed in ac-
cordance with the then existing Rules prior to the enforcement of the
amended Rules the appointments made on the basis of the recommen-
H dation made by the Public Service Commission could not be rendered
invalid.
N.T. BEVIN v. K.P.S.C. [SINGH, J.] 251

In Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, [1983] 3 SCC 285 similar
A
question arose relating to recruitment by promotion. The question was
whether promotion should be made in accordance with the Rules, in
force on the date the vacancies occurred or in accordance with the
amended Rules. The Court observed as under:

"The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules B
would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended
rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that
henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade
~ II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and
not on the Statewise basis and, therefore, there was no
question of challenging the new rules. But the question is
of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended c·
rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which
fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed
by the old rules and not by the new rules."

The same view was taken in P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. v. State of 0
Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1988] Supp. SCC 740. Similar view was
taken in A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Ors., [1983)3SCC 33.
It is a well accepted principle of construction that a statutory rule or
Government Order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by
necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Where
proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the E
.J... selection should noriiially be regulated by the then existing rules and
Government Orders and any amendment of the rules or the Govern-
ment Order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the
selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Com-
mission unless the amended rules or the amended Government orders
~
issued in exercise of its statutory power eithe: by express provision or F
by necessary intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applic-
.
~ ~
able to the pending selections. See P. Mahendra & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors., [1989]4JudgmentToday SC 459.

In the instant case, para 11 of the Government Order dated 9th
July 1975 made the Government's intention clear that the revised G
directions which were contained in that Government Order would not
apply to the selections in respect of which advertisement had already
..,.: been issued, therefore the mode of selection as contained in Annexure
2 to the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 was not applicable to
the selection for filling the 50 posts of Tehsildars pending before the
Public Service Commission. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the H
'7' :
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
252 I 1990) 2 S.C.R.
Select list including the additional list as prepared by the Comm· .
. - I I d I'd tsston
A and published in March 1976 was ega an va 1 and the State Govern.
ment wrongly refused to approve the same. The State Govern ,
Order dated 23rd Apn'I 1"7'-.7 "
d'trectmg
· thfe Co~mtsston
· · to prepare
mem s
fresh Jist in accordance wtth the mode o sclectton as contained in
Annexure 2 to the Government Order dated 9th July 1975 was illeg 1
B consequently the select list prepared afresh by the Commissi~ '
pursuant to the directions of the State Government is not sustainabl:
in law. Since the additional list prepared by the Commission co.ntaincd
the names of the appellants, tbey were enmled.1o...appointment to the J
posts of Tehsildars. We accordingly allow the appeals set aside the __ I
order of the High Court and direct the State Government to appoint
the appellants to the posts ofTehsildars, on the basis of additional list
C published by the Commission on 18th March 1976.
ri
During the pendency of the wnt petition before the High Court,
appointments were made to the posts of Tehsildars on the basis of the
revised list prepared by the Commission in accordance with the direc·
tions of the State Government dated 23rd April 1976. Pursuant to the
T(
I
D interim direction of .the High Court the appointment orders contained
a specific term that the appointments would be subject to the result of
the writ petition filed by the appellants. Since the appellants have
succeeded, the respondents' appointment is liable to be set aside. The
respondents have been working for a period of about 14 years, it would
cause great hardship to them if their appointment is quashed, and they
It
-~

E are directed to vacate the office which they have been holdng during
all these years. At the &arne time the appellants have been wrongly
denied their right to the posts of Tehsildars. Having regard to these
facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would be expe-
dient in the interest of justice not to interfere with the respondents'
appointment but at the same time steps should be taken to enforc.e·the •L.:
F appellants' right to the posts of Tehsildars. In this view, we direct the
State Government to appoint the appdlants on the posts ofTehsildars
with n:trospective t:ffect, but if no vacancies are available the State
Government will create supernumerary posts of Tehsildars for
· · the appellants
appomtmg . against those posts. We further direct
- !hat.
G for purpose of seniority the appdlants 6hould be placed below the last
candidate appointed in 1976, but they will not be entitled to ~ny ba'~
w~ges. The appellants wiU be entitled to promotion if otherwise foun
~u1table. ·

H
costs.
S.B.
In I he Circum~tanccs
· · o\\ 0
of the case, parties shall bear t1Jclr

Appeuls aII0
wed-
)
~
-~ -