PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL versus JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ANR. ETC.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL versus JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ANR. ETC.

Since the 2001 Rules and advertisement did not accord preference to trained apprentices, and 2003 Rules came into force after selection was substantially completed, no vested or accrued right exists for additional marks. Retrospective application of the 2003 Rules is impermissible; executive clarification does not amend statutory rules. Altering the criteria after the advertised process violates Article 14.

Parties
Appellant: Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal; Respondent: Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr. etc.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment – Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Direct Recruitment, Selection Criteria, Preference to Trained Apprentices, Retrospective Application of Rules, Executive Orders Vs Statutory Rules
Administrative Law Service Law Constitutional Law Direct Recruitment Selection Criteria Preference to Trained Apprentices Retrospective Application of Rules Executive Orders Vs Statutory Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal

Appellant

Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr. etc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment – Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trained apprentices are entitled to 10 additional marks in the selection process governed by the 2001 Rules for Junior Engineers.
  2. 2 Whether the 2003 Rules with preference for trained apprentices apply retrospectively to the selection process commenced under the 2001 Rules.
  3. 3 Impact and authority of executive clarifications versus statutory recruitment rules.

Ratio Decidendi

Since the 2001 Rules and advertisement did not accord preference to trained apprentices, and 2003 Rules came into force after selection was substantially completed, no vested or accrued right exists for additional marks. Retrospective application of the 2003 Rules is impermissible; executive clarification does not amend statutory rules. Altering the criteria after the advertised process violates Article 14.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • No order as to costs