Karnati Ravi & Anr. v. Commissioner Survey Settlements And Land Records & Ors. S

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals concerned a selection process for appointment as Deputy Surveyor. The appellants participated in the selection and there was no dispute that they possessed the required qualifications. The applicable Rules prescribed only the essential qualifications for the post and did not prescribe any procedure or method of selection. In the absence of a selection procedure under the Rules, executive instructions notified that candidates would undergo a written test and a physical endurance test.

The appellants appeared in the written examination and were also subjected to the physical endurance test, which they did not qualify. After being unsuccessful in the physical endurance test, they challenged the validity of the executive instructions introducing that test.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in the absence of a selection procedure prescribed under the Rules, executive instructions can validly prescribe the procedure for selection and appointment.
2. Whether candidates who participated in the selection process without objection can subsequently challenge the validity of the selection procedure (including a physical endurance test) introduced through executive instructions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The physical endurance test was not prescribed under the Rules, unlike the selection process for a Police Constable where such a test is a prescribed procedure.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court rejected the appellants' contention that the physical endurance test was invalid merely because it was not prescribed under the Rules. It observed that even the written examination was not prescribed under the Rules; the Rules only set out essential qualifications and did not lay down the selection method.

Given the absence of a prescribed method of selection in the Rules, the Court held that the selection procedure had to be supplied through executive instructions. The Court further reasoned that, under Article 162 of the Constitution, the Executive is empowered to issue instructions regarding the procedure for selection so long as such instructions do not conflict with the Rules.

Independently, the Court relied on the appellants' conduct: they participated in the written examination and the physical endurance test without raising any objection at the relevant time. Having taken part in the process without protest, they were not entitled to challenge the procedure later after being unsuccessful in the physical endurance test.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.

As a direct consequence, the executive instructions prescribing the written test and physical endurance test for selection to the post of Deputy Surveyor were upheld in the context of these appeals, and the appellants obtained no relief against their non-qualification in the physical endurance test. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying Article 162 and the principle that participation without objection bars a later challenge to the procedure.