Supreme Court Upholds Executive Instructions in Deputy Surveyor Selection: Karnati Ravi vs. Commissioner (20 July 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2017

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 897/2010

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Can an employer use executive orders to set the rules for hiring when there are no formal rules in place? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case about the selection of Deputy Surveyors. The court had to decide whether a physical endurance test, which was not mentioned in the formal rules, could be used as part of the selection process. This judgment clarifies the role of executive instructions in the absence of specific rules for selection.

Case Background

The appellants in this case applied for the position of Deputy Surveyor. While they met the basic qualifications for the job, the formal rules did not specify the selection procedure. In the absence of such rules, the authorities issued executive instructions that included a written test and a physical endurance test. All the appellants participated in both tests. However, they were unsuccessful in the physical endurance test. Following their failure, they challenged the validity of the physical endurance test, arguing that it was not prescribed under the rules.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The judgment does not mention any prior proceedings before lower courts.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Article 162 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the extent of the executive power of a State. The Court noted that in the absence of specific rules, the executive is empowered to issue instructions for the selection process, provided that these instructions do not contradict existing rules.

Article 162 of the Constitution of India states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the physical endurance test was not a prescribed procedure under the relevant rules, unlike the selection process for a Police Constable, where such a test is explicitly required. They contended that the executive instructions imposing the physical endurance test were therefore invalid.

The respondents argued that in the absence of specific rules, the executive had the power to issue instructions regarding the selection process. They further argued that since the appellants participated in the selection process, including the written and physical endurance tests, without objection, they could not later challenge the procedure.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants was in pointing out that the physical endurance test was not a prescribed procedure under the rules, and thus, it was invalid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether, in the matter of selection and appointment, executive instructions pertaining to the procedure of selection, which is not prescribed under the Rules, can rule the field.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. It primarily relied on the constitutional provision of Article 162.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the executive instructions regarding the selection process were valid since they did not conflict with any existing rules. The court also noted that the appellants participated in the selection process without any objection and therefore could not challenge the procedure later.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that executive power can fill the gaps when formal rules are absent, as long as it does not contradict existing rules. The Court also emphasized that candidates who participate in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge the process. This suggests a focus on maintaining the integrity of the selection process and preventing opportunistic challenges.

Key Takeaways

✓ Executive instructions can govern selection processes when formal rules are absent, provided they do not conflict with existing rules.

✓ Candidates who participate in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge the procedure.

✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of clear and comprehensive rules for selection processes to avoid ambiguity and potential challenges.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in the absence of specific rules, executive instructions can govern selection processes as long as they do not conflict with existing rules. This judgment reinforces the principle that executive power can fill gaps where formal rules are lacking. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of executive instructions in the selection process for Deputy Surveyors, emphasizing that the executive can issue such instructions in the absence of specific rules. The Court also ruled that candidates who participate in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge it.