PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHALversusJAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ANR. ETC.

                       [2014] 3 S.C.R 1026


A       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL
                                 V.
        JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA & ANR. ETC.
               (Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2007)

                         MARCH 3, 2014
B
               [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
               RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

        UTTRANCHAL         SUBORDINATE         ENGINEERING
C SERVICE (EMERGENCY DIRECT RECRUITMENT)
  RULES, 2001: r.5(4) - Selection for the post of Junior
  Engineer under the 2001 Rules - Advertisement and the 2001
  Rules did not provide any weightage to be given to trained
  apprentices - Rules 2001 ceased to exist on 11. 11. 2002 - On
D 31.7.2003, 2003 Rules framed - Rules 2003 superseded all
  existing Rules but Rule 5(4) of 2001 Rules was transposed
  by Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules - Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules
  provided that the marks obtained in the written examination
  and the marks obtained in the interview shall be increased
E by 10 extra marks in case of trained apprentices - Claim by
  respondents-writ petitioners to make selection after giving
  benefit of 1O additional marks to the candidates for completed
  apprenticeship - Held: All the candidates including the
  respondents participated in the selection process under 2001
F Rules being fully aware that no preference was given to the
  trained apprentices - Therefore, it cannot be said that any
  vested right had accrued to the trained apprentices, under the
  2001 Rules - The Rules of 2003 came into force on 31. 7.
  2003 and no retrospective effect was given to it - The 2003
  Rules could not have the effect of amending the 2001 Rules
G which had already ceased to exist in terms of Rule 6 thereof
  w.e.f. 11.11.2001 - It was wholly impermissible to alter the
  selection criteria which was advertised in 2001 - As no
  preference was given to the trained apprentices in 2001

H                              1026
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH           1027
            CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC.

Rules, many eligible candidates in that category may not         A
have applied - Therefore, giving such preference would be
clear infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -
Service law - Selection.

     CIRCULAR/GOVERNMENT ORDERS/NOTIFICATION:                    B
Executive orders - Binding effect of - Held: The executive
orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India - Such executive
orders/instructions can only supplement the rules framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.   C

     The State of Uttranchal came into existence on 9th
November, 2000. The Public Service Commission (PSCU)
was established in May, 2001. On 12th November, 2001,
the Uttranchal Subordinate Engineering Service
(Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2001 were framed           D
for filling up large number of vacancies of post of Junior
Engineer which became available on creation of the State
of Uttranchal. A proposal was sent by State Government
on 2nd November, 2001 to PSCU for conducting a written
examination. The written examination was to be                   E
conducted by llT as the PSCU did not have the necessary
infrastructure. Pursuant to issuance of advertisement on
27th November, 2001, the written examination was held
by the llT on 12th January, 2002 and result of the written
examination was declared on 10th July, 2003.                     F

     A notification was issued on 31st July, 2003
superseding all the existing rules and regulations of
selection process in regard to direct recruitment of
Junior Engineer in various departments. The candidates
who had cleared written examination were called for              G
interview from 18th to 22nd December, 2003.

    In the notification dated 31st July, 2003, Rule 5(4)
provided that for the purpose of selection, the marks
obtained in the written examination would be added in the        H
    1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A marks obtained in the interview, but for preparing the
  final merit list, the candidates who had completed
  apprenticeship would be given extra 10 marks in addition
  to the marks obtained by them in the written examination
  and interview. However, by letter dated 29th April, 2004,
s it was clarified that 1Omarks were to be added to the total
  marks obtained by the candidates who had completed
  apprenticeship, only where the direct recruit candidate
  and the apprentice candidate stood on equal footing.
  Thereafter, the selected list of the successful candidates
c was prepared and forwarded to the State Government on
  15th May, 2004.

       Aggrieved by the non-grant of additional 10 marks,
  large number of unsuccessful candidates in the
  apprenticeship category filed a number of petitions,
D seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
  appellant to make a selection after giving benefit of 10
  additional marks to all the candidates who had completed
  apprenticeship. The High Court allowed the writ petition
  solely on the ground that the clarification dated 29th April,
E 2004 could not have the effect of amending the statutory
  rules framed under Article 309 on 31st July, 2003. It was
  held that the direction issued on 29th April, 2004 related
  to the same selection to which the amended rules of 2003
  were applicable and, therefore, the G.O. dated 29th April,
F 2004 being in the nature of executive instructions could
  not supplant the statutory rules but could only
  supplement the statutory rules. Hence the instant
  appeals.

        Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
      HELD: 1. The Uttranchal Subordinate Engineering
  Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2001 were
  specifically framed to cater for an emergency as the State
  of Uttaranchal came into existence on 9th November,
H 2000. There was such an urgent need for recruitment of
   PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH       1029
             CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC.

Junior Engineers that since the infrastructure of the         A
PSCU was not in existence, a request was made that the
posts be taken out of the purview of the PSCU on this
one occasion, and the written examination be conducted
by llT, Roorkee. PSCU agreed to such procedure but
limited only to the holding of the written examination. The   B
interviews were still to be held by the PSCU. The Rules
of 2001 were specifically framed for making the selection
of the candidates, who would have applied for the
available posts. Rule 4 provided comprehensive criteria
for making a selection to the post of Junior Engineer. The    c
selection was to be made on the basis of the total marks
obtained by the candidates in the written examination and
the interview. The list of successful candidates of the
written examination was to be made available by llT,
Roorkee to PSCU. Thereafter, the PSCU was to call the         0
candidates for interview on the basis of minimum
qualifying marks in the written examination. Section 4(11)
provided that the PSCU shall prepare a merit list by
adding marks obtained by the candidates in the written
examination and the interview. The Rules prescribed that      E
if two or more candidates secured equal marks, the
candidates securing more marks in the written
examination shall be preferred. In case, the marks
obtained by two candidates in written examination are
also equal, the older candidate shall be preferred to the
younger. Therefore, it is evident that consciously the        F
State had not provided for any preference to be given to
the trained apprentices under the Rules. Keeping in view
the provisions contained in the Rules, the State
Government issued an advertisement on 27th November,
2001. The advertisement also did not provide for any          G
weightage to be given to the trained apprentices. All the
candidates including the respondents participated in the
selectibn process, being fully aware that no preference
will be given to the trained apprentices. Therefore, it
cannot be said that any accrued or vested· right had          H
     1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A accrued to the trained apprentices, under the 2001 Rules.
  [Paras 18, 20] (1045-B, C-E; 1046-C-H; 1047-A]

         U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. UP.
    Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (1995)
B 2 SCC 1: 1995 (1) SCR 204 - referred to.

         2. The result of the written examination was declared
    on 10th July, 2003. The interview was conducted by the
    PSCU from 18th December, 2003 to 22nd December,
    2003. Thereafter, only the result was to be declared and
C the appointments were to be made on the basis of merit
    obtained by the candidates in the selection process. The
    2001 Rules specifically provided that the Rules are
    applicable only for the direct recruitment in the year 2002
    for subordinate engineering service. The Rules also
D made it clear that the same shall become ineffective after
    the process of recruitment is completed. Thereafter, the
    selected candidates shall be governed by the Service
    Rules and the Government Orders applicable in the
    Government. This makes it abundantly clear that on 12th
E November, 2002, the 2001 Rules ceased to exist.
    However, on 31st July, 2003, the 2003 Rules were framed.
    A bare perusal of the title of the Rules would show that
    the Rules came into force on 31st July, 2003. The Rules
    superseded all existing Rules but Rule 5(4) of 2001 Rules
I=' was transposed by Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules. Rule 5(4)
    of the 2001 Rules provided that marks of interview shall
    be added to the marks of written examination for
    selection. But Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules provided that
    the marks obtained in the written examination and the
G marks obtained in the interview shall be increased by 10
    extra marks in case of trained apprentices. The
    respondents could have taken no advantage of these
    Rules. The Selection process was under the 2001 Rules.
    The Rules of 2001 as well as advertisement did not
    provide for any additional marks/weightage to be given
H
   PUBLIC SERVICE COMM, UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH         1031
             CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC.

to the trained apprentices. The Rules of 2003 came into       A
force on 31st July, 2003. No retrospective effect can be
given to the same without any express provision to that
effect being made in the Rules. This apart, the 2001 Rules
that were said to be amended were, in fact, non-existent.
The 2001 Rules expired on 11th November, 2001 in terms        8
of Rule 6 thereof. The High Court was in error in holding
that 2003 Rules were applicable to the process of
selection which had commenced in 2001 under the 2001
Rules. [Paras 21, 22 and 23] [1047-B-H; 1048-A-B]

     3. The High Court has wrongly concluded that as the      C
2003 Rules had been framed in obedience to the
directions issued by a single judge of the High Court in
a writ petition titled Subhash Chandra Vs. State of
Uttaranchal, they would relate to the selection which was
governed by the 2001 Rules and the advertisement              D
issued by the State on 27th November, 2001. Although
2003 Rules are titled as 'First Amendment Rules', the
same is a misnomer. The 2003 Rules could not have the
effect of amending the 2001 Rules which had already
ceased to exist in terms of Rule 6 thereof with effect from   E
11th November, 2001. The respondents, therefore, cannot
claim that any accrued or vested right of the trained
apprentices has been taken away by the 2004
clarification, in relation to the selection governed by the
2001 rules, and advertisement dated 11th November,            F
2001. Furthermore, the High Court in Subhash Chandra's
case had only reiterated the directions which have been
given by the Supreme Court in the case of UPSRTC.
lnspite of those directions being in existence, no
preference had been provided to the trained apprentices       G
in the 2001 Rules. The respondents, unsuccessful
candidates who were trained apprentices, woke up only
after the select list was published by the PSCU. Even if
the 2003 Rules have been framed on the directions of the
High Court, the rules came into force on 31st July, 2003.
                                                              H
    1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A Therefore, it cannot be said that the said rules were
  applicable to the selection which was governed under
  the 2001 Rules and the advertisement dated 11th
  November, 2001. Under the 2001 Rules, the marks to be
  given for the interview could not be more than 12.5% of
8 the written examination and there was no provision for
  adding 10 marks to the total marks of written test and
  interview in the category of trained apprentices. This was
  sought to be introduced by the 2003 Rules which came
  into force on 31st July, 2003. In such circumstances, it
C would be wholly impermissible to alter the selection
  criteria which was advertised on 27th November, 2001.
  Since no preference had been given to the trained
  apprentices, many eligible candidates in that category
  may not have applied. This would lead to a clear
  infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
D Selection procedure can not be altered after the process
  of selection had been completed. [Paras 24, 25] [1048-B-
  H; 1049-C-E]
      K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008)
E 3 sec 512: 2008 (2) SCR 1025 - relied on.
      4. It is incorrect to state that the benefit of 10
  additional marks to the trained apprentices is limited only
  to those trained apprentices who have secured equal
  marks with one or more candidates in the category of
F direct recruits. The reliance was placed on the directions
  issued by this Court in the case of UPSRTC which was
  as follows: "Other things being equal, a trained
  apprentice should be given preference over direct
  recruits." The only natural meaning of the said phrase
G 'other things being equal' is that all the candidates must
  have been subjected to the same selection process, i.e.,
  same written test and interview. Further that their inter-
  se merit is determined on the same criteria, applicable to
  both categories. In this case, it is the aggregate of the
H marks secured by the candidate in the written test and
   PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH         1033
             CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC.

the interview. The additional 10 marks are given to the         A
apprentices as they are generally expected to secure
lesser marks than the direct recruits in the written
examination. Thus, by adding 10 marks to the total of the
written examination of the trained apprentices, they are
sought to be put at par with the direct recruits. Therefore,    B
necessarily this preference is to be given to all the trained
apprentices across the board. It cannot be restricted only
to those trained apprentices who fortuitously happen to
secure the same marks as one or more of the direct
recruits. In case the additional 10 marks are restricted        c
only to such trained apprentice candidates, it would
result in hostile discrimination. This can be best
demonstrated by giving an illustration. Assume there are
ten candidates belonging to trained apprentices
category. Let us say that candidate No.1 secures 50%            0
total marks on the basis of the marks obtained in the
written test plus interview, whilst candidates No.2 to 10
secure total marks ranging from 51 to 59. But candidate
No.1 has secured total marks identical to a direct recruit,
i.e., 50%; whereas candidates No.2 to 10 have not
secured marks at par with any direct recruit candidate.         E
On the basis of the clarification dated 29th April, 2004,
candidate No.1 will get the benefit of 10% weightage and
candidates No.2 to 10 will not. Therefore, after weightage
is given to candidate No.1, his/her total marks would be
60%. This would put him/her over and above, all other           F
candidates, i.e., candidates No.2 to 10 who have secured
higher marks than candidate No.1 who actually has
lesser marks, if no weightage is given to his/her.
Therefore, candidate Nos. 2 to 10 securing higher marks
would be shown at a lower rank to candidate No.1 in the         G
inter-se merit. In such a situation, a trained apprentice
candidate securing lesser marks than his colleague
would not only steal a march over the direct recruits but
also over candidates who got more marks within his own
category. Such an interpretation would lead to absurd           H
   1034    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A consequences. This is not the intention of giving the
  preference to the trained apprentices. This interpretation
  would, in fact, create a sub-classification within the class
  of trained apprentice candidates. Such a sub-
  classification would have no rationale nexus, with the
B object sought to be achieved. The object of the
  preference is to give weightage to the apprentices so that
  the State does not lose the benefit of the training given
  to them, at the State expense. This would be a clear
  breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 26)
c [1049-F-H; 1050-A-H; 1051-A-C]
       5. The only direction issued by this Court in
  UPSTRC's case was to give preference to the trained
  apprentices over direct recruits. No direction was given
  in the judgment as to how the preference was to be
D given. However, in order to ensure that the training given
  to the apprentices at the State expense is utilized, certain
  directions were issued. lnspite of the said directions, no
  preference was given to the trained apprentices in the
  selection process which was governed by the 2001
E Rules, and the advertisement dated 27th November, 2001.
  Whilst the process of selection was still in progress, the
  High Court rendered its judgment in the case of Subhash
  Chandra. The 2003 Rules were framed and enforced with
  effect from 31st July, 2003. Consequently, when the
F interviews were being conducted, the PSCU was faced
  with the 'amendment rules' of 2003. Therefore, the PSCU
  by a letter dated 5th April, 2004 sought clarification as to
  whether 2001 rules would be applicable or Rules of 2003
  would be applicable, to the selection process. In these
G circumstances, the State Government wrote to the PSCU
  on 29th April, 2004, on the basis of legal advice that
  preference to the trained apprentices is to be given only
  if the two candidates secured equal marks. The legal
  opinion clarified that the amended rules of 2003 would
H not be applicable to the selection process which had
   PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH        1035
             CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC.

already started. Therefore, the selection process under        A
the 2001 Rules was excluded. However, 2004 clarification
would not have the effect of amending 2003 Rules.
Undoubtedly, 2004 clarification is only an executive
order. It is settled proposition of law that the executive
orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the              8
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such
executive orders/instructions can only supplement the
rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. Although clarification dated 29th
April, 2004 would not have the effect of superseding,
amending or altering the 2003 Rules; it would not be           C
possible to give any relief to the respondents. The criteria
under the 2003 Rules governed all future recruitments.
The claim of the respondents (trained apprentices) would
not be covered under the 2001 Rules by virtue of the so
called amendment made by 2003 Rules. The High Court            D
committed an error, firstly, in holding that the 2003 rules
are applicable, and secondly, not taking into
consideration that all the posts had been filled up by the
time the decision had been rendered. [Paras 27, 28] [1051-
D, G-~; 1052-A-G; 1053-A-B]                                    E
     U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare
Association & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 438;
N. T. Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service
Commission & Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 157; P. Mahendran & Ors.
Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 411: 1989 (2) F
Suppl. SCR 385; Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 627: 2007 (8) SCR 883; Chandra
Prakash Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors. (2002)
6 SCC 127: 2002 (3) SCR 948; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 576; Ramji Purshottam G
(dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (dead) by
Lrs. & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 455 - referred to.

                    Case Law Reference:
    1995 (1) SCR 204             Referred to     Para 8        H
    1036    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A       (2000) 5 sec 438               Referred to       Para 9
        (1990) 3 sec 157               Referred to       Para 14
        1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 385        Referred to       Para 14
        2007 (8) SCR 883               ~eferred to       Para .14
B
        2002 (3) SCR 948               Referred to       Para 14

        (201 O) 12 sec 576             Referred to       Para 14
        (2004) 6 sec 455               Referred to       Para 16
c       2008 (2) SCR 1025              Relied on         Para 25

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3034 of 2007.

D       From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2006 of the
    High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition Nos. 149,
    129, 135, 136, 137, 147, 148, 162, 169, 255, 302, 186 and
    300 of 2004 (SIB).
                                   WITH
E Civil. Appeal No. 3036 of 2007.

         Vijay Hansaria, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ajay Kumar,
    Krishna Prakash Dubey for the Appellant.

F        S.R. Singh, Ankur Yadav, Ujjawal Pandey, Raj Singh Rana,
    K.S. Rana, P.N. Gupta, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Prateek Dwivedi,
    Rachana Srivastava for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. These appeals have
  been filed by the Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal,
  Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as 'PSCU') challenging the
  judgment dated 2nd March, 2006 of the High Court of
  Uttaranchal at Nainital rendered in Writ Petition Nos. 149, 129,
H 135, 136, 137, 147, 148, 162, 169, 255, 302, 186, and 300 of
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTIARANCHAL v. JAGDISH      1037
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

2004. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has given a         A
direction to the appellant to give weightage of 10 bonus marks
to the trained apprentice candidates as per the "Uttaranchal
Subordinate Service [Emergency Direct Recruitment (First
Amendment)] Rules, 2003" in the selection held by UPSC; and
after adding 1O marks, merit list of the selected candidates be     B
prepared and recommended for the appointment to the
Government. It has also been directed that all the successful
candidates shall be given appointment in the remaining
vacancies of the Junior Engineers in the various departments
of the Government and the insfrumentalities of the State            c
according to the merit list of apprentices selected in the merit
list. It has been further directed that the aforesaid order shall
survive for one year from the date of its publication.

    2. Civil Appeal No.3036 of 2007 impugns the judgment of
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital dated 31st March,         D
2006 wherein the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition Nos.
446 of 2006, 275 of 2004, 166 of 2004, 138 of 2006, 333 of
2004 and 775 of 2006 in terms of the earlier judgment dated
2nd March, 2006 which is subject matter of Civil Appeal
No.3034 of 2007.                                                    E

     3. In the year 2001, large number of vacancies of Junior
Engineers existed in various departments of the State of
Uttaranchal. Therefore, a proposal was sent by the State
Government on 2nd November, 2001 to the PSCU for                    F
conducting a written examination. The written examination had
to be conducted by llT, Roorkee as the PSCU did not have the
necessary infrastructure. The PSCU had been established in
May, 2001 soon after the State of Uttaranchal came into
existence on 9th November, 2000. On 12th November, 2001,            G
the Government of Uttaranchal framed Uttaranchal Subordinate
Engineering Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules,
2001 under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
These rules were notified vide Gazette Notification No.1973/
One-2001 dated 12th November, 2001. It appears that these           H
    1038    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R

A rules were framed only for filling up large number of post of
  Junior Engineers which became available upon the creation of
  State of Uttaranchal. Therefore, the rules specifically provided
  as follows:-

        "The Rules shall become ineffective after the process of
B
        Recruitment is completed as it has never been
        promulgated. Candidates selected on the basis of Rules
        shall be governed by Service Rules and G.Os. as
        applicable before in the Govt."
c       4. Rule 5 which dealt with the manner in which the
    candidate was to be selected and the merit list was to be
    prepared reads as under :-
        "4. Conduct method of Examination
D       (1) Appointing authorities shall inform the no of SC, ST
        and OBC vacancies in all the categories and decide the
        vacancies to Dept. of Personnel of State Govt. who will
        publish the same in the newspapers.

E       (2) The application for selection shall be invited in
        prescribed format of the Govt. for consideration.
        (3) Even if the relevant Service Rules regarding the issue
        or Govt. Orders are contrary, then also with the permission
        of llT Roorkee shall conduct the examination for th~ Direct
F
        Recruitment of Senior Engineers for the candidates.
        (4) The marks of interview to be added to marks of the
        written examination for selection.
G       (5) Written examination shall be conducted by the llT
        Roorkee according to Rules Prescribed by the State Govt.
        (6) Marks for the interview shall be determined by the State
        Govt. which shall not be more than 12.5"/o of the written
        examination.
H
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCf!!AL·V JAGDISH     1039
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

    (7) Question papers of the written examination shall be         A
    printed both in Hindi and English languages.
    (8) Written examination shall be conducted at place on
    time as decided by llT Roorkee.
    (9) IIT Roorkee shall prepare list on the basis of written      B
    examination and shall make it avaiiable to the Public
    Service Commission, Uttaranchal.
    (10) Commission shall call the candidates.for interview on
    the basis of minimum qualifying marks in the written            c
    examination.
    (11) Commission shall prepare the merit list as shown in
    the written examination and interview. If two or more
    candidates score equal marks their the candidate scoring
    more marks in written exam shallr be pref_erred.  If marks in
                                                                    0
                                           . ..
    written exam are also equal the cand.idlite of more age
    shall be preferred and to be kept in. merit list accordingly.
    The names of candiaates in m~rit Ii~\ shall not be more
    than 25% of the total no. of vacancies.
                                                                    E
    (12) Commission shall forward·~the merit list to the
    Department of Personnel."
     5. On 27th November, 2001, the State issued an
advertisement for filling up the vacancies ,,f Junior Engineers,    F
which was accompanied by a prescribed format of the
application form. The terms and conditions of the
advertisement were strictly in conformity with the 2001 rules.
The written examination was held by the llT Roorkee on 12th
January, 2002. The result of the written examination was            G
declared on 10th July, 2003.
    6. It appears that a notification was issued on 31st July,
2003, superseding all the existing rules and regulations of
selection process in regard to direct recruitment of Junior
Engineer in various departments. The notification reads as          H
     1040    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A   under:

                           "Govt. of Uttaranchal
                         Department of Personnel
                             Notification Misc.
                            Dated 31.07.2003
B
         No. 1097/one-2 2003 Hon'ble Governor under Article 309
    Constitution of India for different Engineering Departments the
    effective Services Rules are encroached once and Rules
    framed for direct recruitment of Junior Engineers as follows:
c
        Uttaranchal Subordinate Engineering Services
    (Emergency Direct Recruitment) (First Amendment) Rules
    2003.

        3. Brief name, Start and application/effect
D
        (i) The Rules shall be called Uttaranchal Subordinate
    Engineering Service~ (Emergency Direct Recruitment) (First
    Amendment) Rules 2003.

E       (ii) The Rules shall be applicable-with immediate effect.

        (iii) Substitution of Rule 5 (4)

        (iv) Rule 5(4) given in column 1 to be substituted by Rule
    given in column 2 in Uttaranchal Subordinate Engineering
F   Services (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules 2001.

              Present Rule                 Substituted Rule

      5(4) The marks of interview     5(4) for selection marks
      to be added to marks of the     scored by the candidate in
G     written examination for         written exam and interview to
      selection.                      be added but for the
                                      preparation of merit list such
                                      candidates      who        had
                                      completed apprenticeship in
H                                     the concerned department to
  PuBuc sERv1cE coM'M.fooARiA.NclfAtl =JA'GrnswJ2 10~1
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J]

                                  be given bonus of 10 marks in       A
                                  the total marks scored in
                                  written exam and interview.
     7. The candidates who had cleared the written
examination were called for interview from 18th December,
2003 to 22nd December, 2003. In the notification dated 31st           B
July, 2003, Rule 5(4) provided that for the purpose of selection,
the marks obtained in the written examination would be added
in the marks obtained in the interview, but for preparing the final
merit list, the candidates who had completed apprenticeship
would be given extra 10 marks in addition to the marks obtained       c
by them in the written .examination and interview. However, by
letter dated 29th April, \2004, it was clarified that 10 marks were
to be added to the total marks obtained by the candidates who
had completed apprenticeship, only where the direct recruit
candidate and the apprentice candidate stood on equal footing.        D
Thereafter, the selected list of the successful candidates was
prepared and forwarded to the State Government on 15th May,
2004.

     8. Aggrieved by the non-grant of additional 10 marks, large
number of unsuccessful candidates in the apprenticeship               E
category filed a number of petitions, seeking a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the appellant to make a selection after
giving benefit of 10 additional marks to all the candidates who
had completed apprenticeship. In the writ petition filed before
the High Court, the petitioners had claimed that the preference       F
had to be given to the trained apprentices in view of the
directions by this Court in the case of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. U. P. Parivahan Nigam
Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. 1 In the aforesaid judgment,
the following directions were given :-                                G

     "(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should
     be given preference over direct recruits.

1.   (1995) 2 sec 1.                                                  H
     j 042    SUPREME COUBJ REPORTS:                   [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A         (2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name
          sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of
          this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal would permit this.
          (3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the
B         same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated
          in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the
          service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent
          of the period for which the apprentice had undergone
          training would be given.
c         (4) The training institute concerned would maintain a list
          of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained
          earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained
          later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall
          be given to those who are senior."
D
        9. These directions were reiterated by this Court in U.P.
    Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association & Anr.
    Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2
       1O. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the trained
E apprentices claimed to be a class apart. It was claimed that
  the classification between the apprentices and others would not
  be only for the purpose of giving preferential treatment in the
  selection but also for giving relaxation in upper age limit,
  relaxation in the matter of getting their names sponsored by the
F employment exchange.

        11. The High Court has allowed the writ petition solely on
  the ground that the clarification dated 29th April, 2004 could
  not have the effect of amending the statutory rules framed under
G Article 309 on 31st July, 2003. It is held that the direction
  issued on 29th April, 2004 related to the same selection to
  which the amended rules of 2003 were applicable. Therefore,
  the G.O. dated 29th April, 2004 being in the nature of executive
  instructions could not supplant the statutory rules but could only
H   2.   (2000) s sec 438.
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH      1043
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

supplement the statutory rules. With this reasoning, the High   A
Court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
PSCU to give weightage of additional 10 marks to the
apprentices by adding the same to the total marks secured by
them in the written examination and the interview.
                                                                B
    12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

     13. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that the High Court has misread the
~irections issued by this Court in the case of U.P. State Road C
Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra). He further submitted that
the selection was governed by the 2001 rules which had been
framed only for making selection on the large number of posts
that have become available on the creation of Uttaranchal. He
submits that the 2001 Rules specifically provided that it shall
be applicable only for the direct recruitment in the year 2002. D
The process for this recruitment had commenced when the
advertisement was Issued in the year 2001. All the respondents
had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. Under
these rules, no preference was given to the trained
apprenticeship. Even the advertisement did not indicate any E
preference to the trained apprentices. Learned senior counsel
pointed out that 2001 rules became ineffective with effect from
11th November, 2002 as provided in Rule 6 thereof. Mr.
Hansaria further submits that the 2003 rules have been wrongly
read by the High Court to be an amendment of the 2001 rules. F
After making a reference to the 2003 Rules, learned senior
counsel pointed out that the 2003 Rules came into force on 31st
July, 2003. Therefore, the High Court has erred in treating the
same to be as amendment of the 2001 rules, which no longer
existed.                                                        G

     14. Learned senior counsel further submitted that 2003
rules cannot be given retrospective effect as·no such express
provision has been made to that effect. He relies on the
judgment in N. T. Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public       H
      1044    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A Service Commission & Ors. 3 P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State
  of Kamataka & Ors. 4 and Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
  Ltd. & Ors. 5 He also submits that all the respondents having
  participated in the selection process cannot be permitted to
  challenge the same He submitted that the final select list was
B published on 15th May, 2004. Only when the respondents did
  not get selected on merit, they filed the writ petitions in June,
  2004. He relies on the judgments in Chandra Prakash Tiwari
  & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors. 6 and Manish Kumar
  Shahi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 7
c      15. Mr. Hansaria further pointed out that 841 posts had
  been advertised on 27th November, 2001. All the posts have
  been duly filled up soon after selection. Therefore, the High
  Court committed an error of jurisdiction in issuing the directions
  to prepare the merit list after adding 10 marks to the marks
D obtained by the trained apprentices. He submitted that in any
  event, all the vacancies having been filled up immediately after
  the publication of the select list, the mandamus issued by the
  High Court can not possibly be implemented.

E      16. Mr. C.U. Singh, appearing for the respondents
  submitted that vested rights of the respondents under 2003
  Rules could not have been taken away by issuance of executive
  instruments issued on 29th April, 2004. He further submitted
  that in this case no retrospective effect is being given to the
F 2003 Rules as these Rules were framed in respect of
  antecedent facts. He relies on the judgment of this Court in
  Ramji Purshottam (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Laxmanbhai D.
  Kurlawala (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. 8

G   3.   (1990) 3 sec 157.
    4.   (1990) 1 sec 411.
    5.   c2007) 10 sec 627
    6.   c2002) 6 sec 127.
    7.   c2010) 12 sec 576
H 8      c2004) 6 sec 455.
     PUBLIC SERVICE COMM .. UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH     1045
   CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J ]

       17. We have considered the submissions made by the              A
· learned counsel for the parties.

       18. In our opinion, it is not at all necessary to examine all
  the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
  The 2001 Rules were specifically framed to cater for an              B
  emergency as the State of Uttaranchal came into existence on
  9th November, 2000. The State sent a letter/request on 2nd
  November, 2001 to PSCU to hold a written examination to fill
  up large number of posts which have become available on
  creation of the new State. On 27th November, 2001, the State         C
, Government advertised 841 posts of Jr. Engineers in different
  departments throughout the State. There was such an urgent
  need for recruitment that since the infrastructure of the PSCU
  was not in existence, a request was made that the posts be
  taken out of the purview of the PSCU on this one occasion, and
  the written examination be conducted by llT, Roorkee. PSCU           D
  agreed to such procedure but limited only to the holding of the
  written examination. The interviews were still to be held by the
  PSCU. The Rules of 2001 were specifically framed for making
  the selection of the candidates, who would have applied for the
  available posts.                                                     E:
       19. The Rules were notified on 12th November, 2001.
  Within two weeks, the necessary advertisement was issued on
  27th November, 2001. The 2001 Rules specifically provided as
  under:-                                                              F

         1.     Brief name, Start and application/effect

        (i)     The Rules shall be called Service (Emergency
                Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2001.
                                                                       G
        (ii)    The Rules shall be applicable with immediate effect

        (iii)   The Rules shall be applicable only for the direct
                recruitment in the year 2002 for Subordinate
                Engineering Services.
                                                                       H
     1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2014} 3 S.C.R.


A         (iv)   The Rules shall be applicable to all the Department
                 for Direct Recruitment of Junior Engineers.

          (v)    The rules shall have over riding effect on all the
                 applicable service Rules for the purpose of Direct
                 Recruitmont of Junior Engineer for once only.
B
          20. A perusal of the aforesaid would clearly show that all
    the candidates including the respondents, who applied in
    response to the advertisement dated 27th November, 2001
    were governed by the 2001 Rules. Rule 4 provides
C   comprehensive criteria for making a selection to the post of Jr.
    Engineer. The written examination was to be conducted by the
    llT, Roorkee. The selection was to be made on the basis of the
    total marks obtained by the candidates in the written
    examination and the interview. The list of successful candidates
D   of the written examination was to be made available by llT,
    Roorkee to PSCU. Thereafter, the PSCU was to call the
    candidates for interview on the basis of minimum qualifying
    marks in the written examination. Section 4(11) provides that
    the PSCU shall prepare a merit list by adding marks obtained
E   by the candidates in the written examination and the interview.
    If two or more candidates secured equal marks, the candidates
    securing more marks in the written examination shall be
    preferred. In case, the marks obtained by two candidates in
    written examination are also equal, the older candidate shall
F   be preferred to the younger. Therefore, it is evident that
    consciously the State had not provided for any preference to
    be given to the trained apprentices under the Rules. Keeping
    in view the provisions contained in the Rules, the State
    Government issued an advertisement on 27th November,
G   2001. The advertisement also did not provide for any weightage
    to be given to the trained apprentices. All the candidates
    including the respondents participated in the selection process,
    being fully aware that no preference will be given to the trained
    apprentices. This was inspite of the directions issued by this
    Court in UPSRTC's case (supra). Therefore, it cannot be said
H
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM .. UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH     1047
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

that any accrued or vested right had accrued to the trained            A
apprentices, under the 2001 Rules.

     21. The result of the written examination was declared on
10th July, 2003. The interview was conducted by the PSCU
from 18th December, 2003 to 22nd December, 2003.
                                                                       8
Thereafter, only the result was to be declared and the
appointments were to be made on the basis of merit obtained
by the candidates in the selection process.

     22. As noticed earlier, the 2001 Rules specifically provided
that the Rules are applicable only for the direct recruitment in       C
the year 2002 for subordinate engineering service. The Rules
also make it clear that the same shall become ineffective after
the process of recruitment is completed. Thereafter, the
selected candidates shall be governed by the Service Rules
and the Government Orders applicable in the Government. This           D
makes it abundantly clear that on 12th November, 2002, the
2001 Rules ceased to exist.

     23 .. However, on 31st July, 2003, the 2003 Rules wer~
framed. A bare perusal of the title of the Rules would~ show.1(h3J :IE
the Rules came into force on 31st July, 2003. T-Re' Rules
supersede all existing Rules but Rule 5(~1rR~~~gPJ1 ~s is
transposed by Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rul~l\) ~~1:.E~~1)2 pt~.J1~
2001 Rules provided that marks of interview sh~llJ?;~ ~~d1~~lp
the marks of written examination for selectio8. ,~ut:§l.!l,e 5~1.l,flf 'f
the 2003 Rules provides that the marks obtained in the w.~iJ!~O
examination and the marks obtained in the interview shall be
increased by 10 extra marks in case of trained apprentices. In
our opinion, the respondents could have taken no advantage ·
of these Rules. The Selection process was under the 2001
Rules. The Rules of 2001 as well as advertisement did not G
provide for any additional marks/weightage to be given to the
trained apprentices. The Rules of 2003 came into force on 31st
July, 2003. No retrospective effect can be given to the same
without any express provision to that effect being made in the
Rules. This apart, the 2001 Rules that were said to be amended H
    1048        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 3 S.C.R


A were, in fact, non-existent. The 2001 Rules expired on 11th
  November, 2001 in terms of Rule 6 thereof. The High Court, in
  our opinion, was in error in holding that 2003 Rules were
  applicable to the process of selection which had commenced
  in 2001 under the 2001 Rules.
8
        24. In our opinion, the High Court has wrongly concluded
  that as the 2003 Rules had been framed in obedience to the
  directions issued by a Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High
  Court in Writ Petition No.44 (SB) of 2002 titled Subhash
  Chandra Vs. State of Uttaranchal, they would relate to the
C selection which was governed by the 2001 Rules and the
  advertisement issued by the State on 27th November, 2001.
  We have already earlier concluded that although 2003 Rules
  are titled as 'First Amendment Rules', the same is a misnomer.
  The 2003 Rules could not have the effect of amending the 2001
D Rules which had already ceased to exist in terms of Rule 6
  thereof with effect from 11th November, 2001. The
  respondents, therefore, cannot claim that any accrued or vested
  right of the trained apprentices has been taken away by the
  2004 clarification, in relation to the selection governed by the
E 2001 rul13s, and advertisement dated 11th November, 2001.
            1
                 ,,
        ~5. Furthermore, the High Court in Subhash Chandra's
  case (suprafhad only reiterated the directions which have been
  gil/ert by tt)is Court in the case of UPSRTC (supra). lnspite of
F tHcis·e directions being in existence, no preference had been
  provided to the trained apprentices in the 2001 Rules. We haa~
  earlier also noticed that the respondents, unsuccessful
  candidates who were trained apprentices, woke up only after
  the select list was published by the PSCU. We may also point
G out that even if the 2003 Rules have been framed on the
  directions of the High Court, the rules came into force on 31st
  July, 2003. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said
  that the aforesaid rules were applicable to the selection which
  was governed under the 2001 Rules and the advertisement
  dated 11th November, 2001. Candidates had applied on the
H
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH      1049
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J ]

basis of the aforesaid advertisement. As noticed earlier, the          A
advertisement in this case was issued on 27th November,
2001. It had set out the criteria of selection laid down in the 2001
Rules which were notified on 12th November, 2001. Written
examination in respect of aforesaid advertisement was held by
llT, Roorkee on 12th January, 2002. The result of the written          B
examination was declared on 10th July, 2003. The 2003 Rules
were notified on 31st July, 2003. The interviews were conducted
between 18th December, 2003 to 22nd December, 2003.
Under the 2001 Rules, the marks to be given for the interview
could not be more than 12.5% of the written examination. Under         c
the 2001 Rules, there was no provision for adding 10 marks
to the total marks of written test and interview in the category
of trained apprentices. This was sought to be introduced by the
2003 Rules which came into force on 31st July, 2003. In such
circumstances, it would be wholly impermissible to alter the           D
selection criteria which was advertised on 27th November,
2001. Since no preference had been given to the trained
apprentices, many eligible candidates in that category may not
have applied. This would lead to a clear infraction of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. To this extent, we accept the            E
submission made by Mr. Hansaria. Selection procedure can
not be altered after the process of selection had been
completed. [See: K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 (para 27)).
     26. We are not able to accept the submission of Mr.               F
Hansaria that the benefit of 10 additional marks to the trained
apprentices is limited only to those trained apprentices who
have secured equal marks with one or more candidates in the
category of direct recruits. The learned senior counsel seeks
to support the aforesaid submission from the directions issued         G
by this Court in the case of UPSRTC (supra) which was as
follows:

    "Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be
    given preference over direct recruits."
                                                                       H
    1050    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A       The only natural meaning of the aforesaid phrase 'other
  things being equal' is that all the candidates must have been
  subjected to the same selection process, i.e., same written test
  and interview. Further that their inter-se merit is determined on
  the same criteria, applicable to both categories. In this case, it
B is the aggregate of the marks secured by the candidate in the
  written test and the interview. The additional 10 marks are given
  to the apprentices as they are generally expected to secure
  lesser marks than the direct recruits in the written examination.
  Tilus, by adding 10 marks to the total of the written examination
c of the trained apprentices, they are sought to be put at par with
  the direct recruits. Therefore, necessarily this preference is to
  be given to all the trained apprentices across the board. It
  cannot be restricted only to those trained apprentices who
  fortuitously happen to secure the same marks as one or more
  of the direct recruits.
0
          In case the additional 10 marks are restricted only to such
    trained apprentice candidates, it would result in hostile
    discrimination. This can be best demonstrated by giving an
    illustration. Assume there are ten candidates belonging to
E   trained apprentices category. Let us say that candidate No.1
    secures 50% total marks on the basis of the marks obtained
    in the written test plus interview, whilst candidates No.2 to 10
    secure total marks ranging from 51 to 59. But candidate No.1
    has secured total marks identical to a direct recruit, i.e., 50%;
F   whereas candidates No.2 to 10 have not secured marks at par
    with any direct recruit candidate. On the basis of the clarification
    dated 29th April, 2004, candidate No 1 will get the benefit of
    10% weightage and candidates No.2 to 10 will not. Therefore,
    after weightage is given to candidate No.1, his/her total marks
G   would be 60%. This would put him/her over and above, all other i
    candidates, i.e., candidates No.2 to 10 who have secured
    higher marks than candidate No.1 who actually has lesser
    marks, if no weightage is given to his/her. Therefore, candidate
    Nos. 2 to 10 securing higher marks would be shown at a lower
H   rank to candidate No.1 in the inter-se merit. In such a situation,
   PUBLIC SERVICE COMM, UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH      1051
 CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J]

a trained apprentice candidate securing lesser marks than his       A
colleague would not only steal a march over the direct recruits
but also over candidates who got more marks within his own
category. Such an interpretation would lead to absurd
consequences. This is not the intention of giving the preference
to the trained apprentices. The interpretation sought to be         B
placed by Mr. Hansaria would, in fact, create a sub-
classification within the class of trained apprentice candidates.
Such a sub-classification would have no rationale nexus, with
the object sought to be achieved. The object of the preference
is to give weightage to the apprentices so that the State does      c
not lose the benefit of the training given to them, at the State
expense. This would be a clear breach of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

      27. The only direction issued by this Court in UPSTRC's
case (supra) was to give preference to the trained apprentices      D
over direct recruits. No direction is given in the judgment as to
how the preference is to be given. It was left entirely to the
discretion of the Government to make the necessary provision
in the statutory rules. In that case, number of candidates who
had successfully completed apprenticeship under the                 E
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 claimed appointment upon
completion. In support of their claim, the candidates relied on
number of Government Orders, which according to them held
out a promise that on successful completion of apprenticeship,
they would be given employment. The High Court issued a writ        F
in the nature of Mandamus directing that such candidate should
be given employment. In such circumstances, UPSRTC came
before this Court and submitted that there was no obligation
on the State Government to ensure employment to any trained
apprentices. This Court analyzed the various Government             G
Circulars and came to the conclusion that there is no promise
held out for the candidates of definite employment. However,
in order to ensure that the training given to the apprentices at
the State expense is utilized, certain directions were issued,
which have been reproduced earlier. As noticed earlier, inspite     H
    1052     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A of the aforesaid directions, no preference was given to the
  trained apprentices in the selection process which was
  governed by the 2001 Rules, and the advertisement dated 27th
  November, 2001. Whilst the process of selection was still in
  progress, the High Court rendered its judgment in the case of
B Subhash Chandra (supra). For the reasons which are not made
  clear in the pleadings or by the learned counsel for any of the
  parties, the 2003 Rules were framed and enforced with effect
  from 31st July, 2003. Consequently, when the interviews were
  being conducted, the PSCU was faced with the 'amendment
c rules' of 2003. Therefore, the PSCU by a letter dated 5th April,
  2004 sought clarification as to whether 2001 rules wou:j be
  applicable or Rules of 2003 would be applicable, to the
  selection process. In these circumstances, the State
  Government wrote to the PSCU on 29th April, 2004, on the
0 basis of legal advice that preference to the trained apprentices
  is to be given only if the two candidates secured equal marks.
  The legal opinion clarified that the amended rules of 2003 would
  not be applicable to the selection process which had already
  started. Therefore, the selection process under the 2001 Rules
  was excluded.
E
        28. However, we find substance in the submission made
  by Mr. C.U. Singh that 2004 clarification would not have the
  effect of amending 2003 Rules. Undoubtedly, 2004 clarification
  is only an executive order. It is settled proposition of law that
F the executive orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the
  proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such
  executive orders/instructions can only supplement the rules
  framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
  India. lnspite of accepting the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh that
G clarification dated 29th April, 2004 would not have the effect
  of superceding, amending or altering the 2003 Rules; it would
  not be possible to give any relief to the respondents. The criteria
  under the 2003 Rules governs all future recruitments. We have
  earlier already concluded that no vested right had accrued to
H the respondents, the trained apprentices, under the 2001 Rules.
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., UTTARANCHAL v. JAGDISH      1053
CHANDRA SINGH BORA ETC. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR. J.]

We do not accept the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh that the A
claim of the respondents (trained apprentices) would be
covered under the 2001 Rules by virtue of the so called
amendment made by 2003 Rules. We are of the opinion that
the High Court committed an error, firstly, in holding that the ·
2003 rules are applicable, and secondly, not taking into B
consideration that all the posts had been filled up by the time
the decision had been rendered.

      29; F.or the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion
that the judgment rendered by the High Court is unsustainable    C
in law and the same is hereby set aside. The appeals are
allowed with no order as to costs.

D.G.                                        Appeals allowed.