erred Case No 2 of 1991
Under Article 139 A1 of the Constitution of India Salman Khurshid Madhan Panikkar Mrs Vimla Sinha and Gopal Singh for the Appellant
Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley Additional Solicitor Generals Ms Kamini Jaiswal and CVS Rao for the Respond ents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN J
The above case has been regis tered in pursuance of our order dated 231190 in Transfer Petition Civil No54690 transferring OANo191 of 1990 under Article 139 A of the Constitution of India from the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench Patna
the appellant s prayer is to dispose of the above case along with Civil Appeal Nos
5439 5290 arising out of SLP Civil Nos
13525 38 of 1990
The relief sought for by the appellant before the CAT Patna Bench was similar to the one before the CAT Principal Bench Delhi that being to declare the second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
On 29890 the 114 Patna Bench in MP No 3690 granted an interim relief which reads thus Heard the learned counsel for the applicant
The applicant may be allowed to appear at the Civil Services Main Examination 1990 subject to result of the final orders in the original application
The respondents are directed accordingly
Copy be given to the parties today Mr Salman Khurshid appearing for the appellant submit ted that the interim direction given by the Patna Bench if covered by the directions given in paras 5ii and 6 of the order of CAT Delhi he has no further submission to be made and the implementation of those directions will satisfy his relief
We in our order dated 7121990 have clarified certain directions given by the CAT Delhi with reference to the various interim orders passed by it in a number of OAs and finally gave the following direction Hence we permit all those candidates falling under Para Nos 5 ii 6 and 7 to sit for the main examination subject to the condition that each candidate satisfies the Secretary Union public Service Commission that heshe falls within these categories and that the concerned candidates have passed the preliminary exami nation of 1990 and have also applied for the main examination within the due date
This permission is only for the ensuing examina tion
 As we are now permitting those who have passed the preliminary examination of 1990 and have applied for the main examination on the basis of the unquestioned and unchallenged directions given under paras 5ii 6 and 7 of the judgment of the CAT Principal Bench New Delhi the same benefit is extended to the other appellants also who satisfy those condi tions as mentioned under paras 5 ii 6 and 7
 The above direction virtually confirms the direction given by the Patna Bench in MP No3690 allowing the appellant therein to sit for CSE Main of 1990
However we have not subjected our direction with any rider in the sense that that direction will be subjected to the result of the appeals
In fact we have in the judgment rendered today in Civil Appeal Nos
5439 5290 and batches given a direction to the respondents inclusive of the Union Public Service Commission that all those candidates who have appeared for the Civil Services Main Examination 1990 pursuant to our permission given in the order dated 71290 and who have 115 come out successfully in the said examination and thereby have qualified themselves for the interview shall be per mitted to appear for the interview test and that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily qualify themselves by getting through the written examinations as well as the interview shah be given proper allocation and appointment on the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second proviso and our present judgment upholding the validity of the said proviso since the respondents have not questioned and challenged the directions given by CAT Principal Bench Delhi in para graphs 5ii 6 and 7 of its judgment dated 2081990
We would like to make it clear that the unchallenged directions given by the CAT in its judgment as well as directions given by us in our order dated 71290 are notcontrolled by any rider in the sense that the said directions were subject to the result of the cases and hence those directions would be confined only to those candidates who appeared for CSE 1990 and no further
The seniority of those successful candidates in CSE 1990 would depend on the service to which they have qualified
The seniority of the left out candidates would be maintained in case they have joined the service to which they have been allocated on the result of previous CSE and such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of seniority as held by the CAT Delhi in its judgment
Therefore we hold that this appellant is also entitled for the same above benefit
In other respects this trans ferred case is dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the main judgment in Civil Appeal Nos
5439 5290 and batches
No order as to costs
RP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant the Improvement Trust framed a develop ment scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 and notices under Section 36 of the Act were published in the Daily Tribune on May 31 1977 June 7 1977 and June 14 1977 and in the local Daily Ajit on May 30 1977 June 6 1977 and June 13 1977 and in the Punjab Government Gazette on June 17 1977 June 24 1977 and July 1977 respectively
A notification as required under Section 42 of the Act was published on June 30 1980 sanctioning the development scheme
The notification was challenged by the Respondents in a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that the notification was not issued within the stipulated period of three years from the first publications of the notice
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ application and the Division Bench of the High Court dis missed the Letters Patent Appeal against which the present petition has been filed by the Improvement Trust contending that the time limit of three years for the issue of the notification under section 42 of the Act was not prescribed under the Act that the first proviso to section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was not applicable to the scheme in question and that the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were 929 incorporated in the Act from the very time of its enactment and hence any amendment to the said section after that date would not be applicable to acquisitions under Act
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
In a case where a statute is incorporated by a reference into another statute an amendment of the statute so incorporated after the date of incorporation does not affect the second statute and the provisions of the latter statute remain the same as they were at the time of incorpo ration
934F G 2
Where one statute is referred to in another it may be merely by way of reference or by way of incorporation of the same
This depends on the language used in the latter statute and other relevant circumstances
934G 3
In the present case there is no question of incorpo ration of any of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into the Punjab Improvement Act 1922 at all as the latter Act does not deal with acquisition of land for the purposes of a scheme as contemplated under the Act
The acquisition of such land for the purposes of the scheme is left to the general law of the land in that connection namely the Land Acquisition Act which has to be resorted to for the pur poses of acquisition of land for the purposes of a scheme as contemplated under the Punjab Town Improvement Act
The only difference is that some of the provisions of the Land Acqui sition Act as referred to in the relevant sections of the Act are given effect to as amended by the relevant sections of the Act
In these circumstances it cannot be held that any provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been incor porated into the Act and the provisions of the Land Acquisi tion Act which have to be applied are the provisions as they stood at the relevant time namely at the time of acquisition in the absence of a contrary intention
934G C 4
The notification under Section 42 should have been published within the period of three years of the date of publication of the notification under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act as required under the first proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
Under sub clause 1 of Clause 2 of the Schedule to the said Act the first publication of a notice of any improvement scheme under section 36 of the said Act is 930 substituted for and has the same effect as the publication in the Government Gazette of a notification under sub sec tion 1 of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
The notice under section 36 of the said Act is required to he published inter alia in a newspaper or newspapers as set out in section 362a of the said Act
In the present case such a notice was first published in the daily Ajit  on May 30 1977 and hence the notification under Section 42 of the said Act should have been published on or before May 30 1980
In fact the notification under Section 42 of the said Act admittedly was published on June 30 1980 and hence was clearly beyond time
935C F Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs Union of India and Anoth er  and Secretary of State for India in Council vs Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd 1958 IA 259 at 267 referred to