Civil Appeal No 716 of 1985
From the Judgment and order dated 2091984 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 307 of 1983
KK Venugopal SK Gambhir and Sanjay Sareen for the Appellants
CP Mittal and CK Ratnaparkhi for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 2091984 in Civil Misc
Petition No 307 of 1983 allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to reconnect and restore the electric supply by installing another meter
The petitioner is a proprietor of Santosh Industries DII BC Sector Sanwar Road Indore and she obtained service connection 893 No 192352 of 30 HP Ioad for running the oil mill
The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board the appellant No 1 who is the licensee installed a meter with three phases for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied and consumed by the petitioner under the aforesaid service connection
On February 18 1983 the meter was burnt and this was brought to the notice of respondent No 4 an Assistant Engineer of the Zone wherein the petitioner s industry is situated
On March 1 1983 the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs433 as price of the meter and Rs44 for meter connection charges
The sum was deposited on the same day but no meter was installed and the electric supply connection was not restored
A letter was sent by the petitioner to the respondent No 1 requesting to restore the electric supply by installation of another meter
The State Electricity Board sent a letter dated 431983 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs1234610 as per the supplementary bill dated 231983 sent alongwith said letter failing which the supply will be disconnected without notice
The basis of the supplementary bill was that the meter was not recording actual energy supplied and consumed as it was found that one phase out of the three phases was not working and the meter was running two phases only
The petitioners filed a writ petition No 307 of 1983 challenging the said letter dated 431983 as well as the supplementary bill dated 231983 on the ground that the demand made on the basis of the supplementary bill was illegal
A return was filed by the respondent to the effect that on 1721983 the power connection was checked by an Assistant Engineer of the respondent Board and it was found that out of three phases one phase was not working
The body seal of the meter was found to be intact
It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was informed that the bill should be revised due to non working of one phase as found at the time of checking
It has also been submitted that the petitioner got the meter burnt as the meter according to respondent did not burn ordinarily
It was further alleged that body seal of the meter was broken
This tampering of the meter was alleged to have been done between 17 to 19 of February 1983 in order to avoid any liability
The respondent further alleged that the petitioner s husband refused to sign the panchnama which was prepared on the spot
The High Court of Madhyra Pradesh after hearing the parties held that since the dispute relates to whether the meter is or is not 894 correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and so long the A said dispute is not decided the respondent No 1 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was not competent to prepare the supplementary bill or revised bill as the said power is entrusted to the Electrical Inspector under sub section 6 of section 26 of the Act 9 of 19 10
It has been further held that the alleged notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of supplementary bill before seeking reconnection or restoration of electricity supply was also not in accordance with the provisions of the Act
The letter dated 431983 issued by the respondent No 1 as well as the supplementary bill of 231983 were quashed holding the same to be illegal
The question of fraud was not even intimated to the respondent consumer
It was raised for the first time in the return to the writ petition
It is an after thought
The respondents were directed to reconnect and restore the electricity supply by installing another meter
Against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed
It has been urged by Mr Venugopal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the respondent committed fraud in breaking the body seal of the meter and in burning the same and as such the dispute does not attract the provisions of the section 266 of the said Act
This dispute cannot be decided by the Electrical Inspector
In support of the submission our attention was drawn to the said provisions of the Act
It appears from the report of the Executive Engineer dated 17th February 1983 that the body seal of the meter was intact at the time of inspection
He only found that the meter which was installed was closed on one phase
So the contention that there was fraud in breaking the body seal of the meter cannot be sustained
Moreover it has been found that the question of fraud was raised at no stage prior to the filing of the return in the High Court
The said story of so called fraud was an after thought
Mr Venugopal after seeing the report of the Assistant Engineer frankly submitted that he would not press the ground of fraud
In order to decide the question whether the impugned notice dated 431983 can be issued by appellant calling upon her to pay the amount of supplementary bill as well as whether supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board when there is a dispute relating to question whether the meter is a correct meter or not it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of sub sections 1 and 6 of section 26 of the said Act
The said provisions are set out hereunder 261 In the absence of an agreement to the contrary 895 the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and the licensee shall if required by the consumer cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter Provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter 266 Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub section 1 is or is not correct the matter shall be decided upon the application of the either party by an Electrical Inspector and where the meter has in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct such Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time not exceeding six months as the meter shall not in the opinion of such Inspector has been correct but save as aforesaid the register of the meter shall in the absence of fraud be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub section he shall give to the other party not less than seven days  notice of his intention so to do
 It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub section 1 is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties
It is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same
If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the Consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub section 6 of section 26
Such a dispute regarding the commission 896 Of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is A outside the ambit of section 266 of the said Act
An Electrical Inspector has therefore no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud
It is only the dispute as to whether the meter isis not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act
In the instant case it appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was not working at all so there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is a correct one or a faulty meter and this dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision will be final
It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer as the Board is not empowered to do so by the said Act
It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations made in the case of Gadag Betgiri Municipal Borough Gadag vs The Electrical lnspector
Government Electrical Inspectorate Government of Mysore AIR as follows What the Inspector may decide under sub section 6 is whether or not the readings obtainable from the meter are accurate and whether the meter is faulty or mechanically defective producing erroneous readings
That is the limited adjudication which in my opinion an Inspector or other authority functioning under sub section 6 may make under its provisions
 x x x x x x x x x In my opinion the legislative intent underlying section 266 of the Act is similar
The only question into which the Inspector or other authority functioning under that sub section might investigate is whether the meter is a false meter capable of improper use or whether it registers correctly and accurately the quantity of electrical energy passing through it
If in that sense the meter installed by respondent 2 this case was a correct meter as it undoubtedly was and as it has been admitted to be the fact that respondent 2 even if what the petitioner states is true so manipulated the supply lines that more energy than what was consumed by the petitioner was allowed to pass through the 897 meter would not render the meter which was otherwise correct an incorrect meter
 This decision was followed in MP Electricity Board Jabalpur and another vs Chhanganlal AIR 1981 MP 170 where it has been observed Where an electric meter is not registering correct consumption of energy not because there is any defect in the meter but because the wiring is defective Section 266 will not be attracted and the meter not being defective the question of arbitration by Electrical Inspector will not also arise 
 A contrary view was however taken in the case of Abdul Razak vs MP Electricity Board where it has been held that About the fittings on the meter and tampering them in such a manner that the reading of the energy would not be correct such a dispute in view of the language of section 266 read with Rule 3 of Schedule VI of the Electricity Act squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector
We are however unable to accept this contrary view as it is obvious from the provisions of section 26 sub section 6 of the said Act that dispute whether a meter is correct or faulty would come under the said provisions and not the dispute regarding tampering of meter
In our view the view taken about the scope of section 266 in the decisions cited above are correct
In the instant case the dispute relates to whether the meter is correet one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil mill of the respondent
So this dispute squarely falls within the provisions of the said Act and as such it has been rightly found by the High Court that it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute
If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months
The appellant No 1 is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the impugned notice threatening 898 disconnection of supply of electricity for non payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it
The Board is also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy
For the reasons aforesaid we affirm the order of High Court and dismiss the appeal without costs
NPV Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 These appeals and writ petitions raised common questions of law relating to the determination of seniority of Munsif appointed in the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva as a result of competitive Examinations of 1970 1972 and 1973 held under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service Judicial Branch Rules 1951 the Rules
Public Service Commission issued a notification dated September 3 1970 for recruitment to 85 posts of Munsifs
In the examination held for the purpose 294 out of 918 candidates qualified in the written test and were called for viva voce test and the Commission submitted to the State Government a list of 46 approved candidates list of 1970 examination for appointment to the service
The Government requested the Commission to recommend some more candidates as there was a shortage of Munsifs while suggesting that the minimum of 40 per cent marks in the aggregate be reduced to 35 per cent
The Commission forwarded another list of 33 candidates the IInd list comprising the candidates who had secured 35 per cent marks in the aggregate and 35 percent in the Viva Voce
All the 79 candidates of the two lists above said were appointed to service between May 1972 and June 1973 and in July 1973 a notification was issued determining inter seniority of the 79 persons appointed on the basis of the 1970 examination in accordance with their position in the lists prepared by the Commission under rule 19 of the Rules
Meanwhile the Public Service Commission held another competitive examination the 1972 examination for appointments to 150 posts of Munsifs and forwarded a list of 150 successful candidates to the Government for appointment under Rule 19 above mentioned and they were so appointed between 1975 and 1977
The State Government in view of the shortage of the Munsifs 795 as also the amendment of rule 19 in pursuance whereof it was no longer necessary for a candidate to qualify independently in the viva voce requested the Commission to reconsider the result of the examination of 1967 1968 1969 and 1970 and approve all those candidates for appointment who might have obtained 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate even if they might have failed to secure the minimum marks in the viva voce tests
The Commission refused to consider this proposal as the minimum marks prescribed by it under the then existing proviso to Rule 19 could not be ignored
The Government thereupon constituted a high level committee comprising the Chief Minister the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission to consider this question and the Committee decided that the Commission be requested to recommend candidates of the 1967 1968 1969 and 1970 examinations as above mentioned
The Government wrote to the commission again for the purpose conveying to it the decision of the High level committee above said and asking it to forward the applications and the marks of the unsuccessful candidates of the Examinations above mentioned
The Commission could forward a list of 37 such candidates of the 1970 Examination only the IIIrd list to the Government
The IIlrd list contained the names of Refiquddin and 36 others the unplaced candidates of the 1970 Examinations unsuccessful due to failure in the viva voce
Thereupon the Government issued a notification appointing 21 of the 37 candidates above mentioned as Munsifs the remaining 16 having already again appeared in the 1972 Examination and selected and appointed to the service
Upon a further request by the Government for 16 more candidates the Commission forwarded another list of 16 candidates who had appeared in the l 972 Examination
In March 1977 the State Government published a seniority list of the successful candidates of the 1970 examination whereupon the unplaced candidates of the IIIrd list of the 1970 Examination submitted a representation for determination of their seniority under Rule 22 of the Rules on the footing that they were recruited in pursuance of the 1970 Examination and therefore they were entitled to seniority as candidates of the examination held in 1970 irrespective of their appointment being made in 1975 thereby claiming seniority over those who had been recruited in pursuance of the 1972 Examination and those who had been recruited earlier to them in pursuance of the 1970 Examination and the Ist and IInd lists of the 1970 Examination
The representation was rejected by the High Court administratively and the Government
Then Rafiquddin and 16 other unplaced candidates filed a writ petition in the High Court
The High Court allowed the writ peti 796 tion on the footing that the unplaced candidates were appointed on the basis of the result of the 1970 Examination quashed the seniority list and issued directions for the preparation of the seniority list of the candidates of the 1970 Examination afresh in accordance with rule 22 read with rule 19 of the rules and for confirmation and promotion of the petitioners in accordance with the seniority list so drawn up
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to this Court against the decision of the High Court
Appellants Sushil Kumar Srivastava and others also preferred an appeal to this Court against the above said decision of the High Court
DP Shukla and three other unsuccessful candidates of the 1970 Examination preferred an appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by them raising the grievance that they were discriminated as they had not been appointed and instead 37 candidates belonging to the lIlrd list had been appointed although they had obtained lower marks
Chandra Prakash Agrawal an unsuccessful candidate at the 1970 Examination Bled a writ petition in this Court challenging the appointments of those who had secured less than 40 per cent marks in the aggregate
Sushil Chand Srivastava a member of the service appointed in pursuance of the 1972 Examination filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the appointments of the unplaced candidates of the 1970 Examination belonging to the IIIrd list which included Kafiquddin and others on the ground that their appointment was illegal and therefore they could not be treated as senior to him
RP Lavaniya a member of the service recruited in pursuance of the 1973 Examination filed a writ petition in this Court claiming seniority over respondents 3 to 15 in the writ petition recruited in pursuance of the 1972 Examination and appointed in service after the petitioners appointment
PN Parasher and 11 others recruited in pursuance of the 1972 Examination filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the seniority list prepared in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court in the writ petition filed by Rafiquddin and others afore mentioned on the ground that the unplaced candidates of the 1970 Examination were not entitled to seniority over the candidates of the 1972 Examina 797 tion as they had been appointed to service earlier in time that writ petition was transferred to this Court as the Transferred case
Allowing the appeal filed by the State of UP and the appeal preferred by Sushil Kumar Srivastava and others and allowing in part the writ petition of Sushil Chand Srivastava and the Transferred case of PN Parashar and others and dismissing the appeal of DP Shukla and others and the writ petition of Chandra Prakash Agarwal and the writ petition of RP Lavaniya the Court
 HELD The High Court completely misconceived the relevant Rules while rendering the judgment in the writ petition filed by the unplaced candidates Rafiquddin and 16 others in total disregard of the facts
It committed a serious error in applying the principles of natural justice to a competitive examination
820E The Rules entrust the Public Service Commission with the duty of holding competitive examinations and recommending the names of the suitable candidates for appointment to the service on the basis of the proficiency shown by the candidates
Rule 19 provided that the list of the selected candidates should be arranged in order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks of each candidate in the written as well as viva voce tests
In pursuance of clause i to the proviso to rule 19 the commission had the power to fix minimum aggregate marks in the written test
Similarly clause ii of the proviso conferred power on the Commission to fix the minimum marks for the viva voce to judge the suitability of the candidates for the service
The scheme underlying rule 19 and the proviso there to made it apparent that the obtaining of the minimum aggregate marks in the written test and the viva voce test was the sine qua non before the Commission could make its recommendations in favour of the candidates for appointment to the service
It is manifest that only those candidates could be appointed to the service who were included in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 19
Appointments to the service are made from the list forwarded by the Commission to the State Government
Seniority in the service is determined on the basis of the year of the examination irrespective of the date of the appointment and the inter se seniority of the candidates recruited is determined on the basis of their ranking in the merit list
Seniority of a candidate appointed to the service would depend upon the result of the competitive examination and his position in the list prepared under rule 19
The claim to seniority on the basis of the year of competitive examination as contemplated by rule 22 is available only to those candidates who are approved by the Commission on the basis of H 798 their marks in the written and viva voce tests
The commission alone had the power to prescribe the minimum marks in the viva voce test for judging the suitability of a candidate for the service
That is the clear meaning of the words in the proviso to rule 19
814B H In the instant case the commission had fixed 35 per cent minimum marks for the viva voce test
The viva voce test is a well recognised method of judging the suitability of a candidate for appointment to public services
There is no constitutional legal infirmity in the provision of clause ii of the proviso to rule 19 conferring power on the commission to fix minimum marks for the viva voce test as aforesaid and so long as the clause ii remained in force the Commission had that power
Even if a candidate had obtained higher aggregate marks in the written and viva voce test his name could not be included in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 19
None of the unplaced candidates of the 1970 examination those included in the IIIrd list had secured minimum marks of 35 per cent in the viva voce test and for that reason they were not approved by the Commission
The appointments of the unplaced candidates made in pursuance of the decision of the high level committee are not countenanced by the rules
There is no escape for the conclusion that the unplaced candidates were appointed to service on the basis of the result of the competitive examination of 1970
Their appointments were made in breach of the rules
It is well settled that where recruitment to service is regulated by the statutory rules the recruitment must be made in accordance with those rules and any appointment made in breach of the rules would be illegal
The appointments of the 21 unplaced candidates made out of the third list were illegal as they were made in violation of the provisions of the rules
The high level committee even though constituted by highly placed persons had no authority in law to take the decision it did as above said as the rules do no contemplate any such committee and the decision taken by the committee could not be implemented
The committee had no authority in law to disregard the rules and direct the Commission which is a constitutional and independent authority not sub servient to the directions of the Government to make a recommendation to the Government in c favour of the unsuccessful candidates by disregarding the minimum marks prescribed for the viva voce test
Its view that after the amendment of the rule 19 the minimum qualifying marks fixed for viva voce could be ignored was wholly wrong
Rule 19 was amended in January 1972 but before that the 1970 examination had already been held and the amendment was not retrospective
Even if the Commission had made recommendations in favour of the unplaced candidates under 799 the directions of the government the appointments of the said candidates would have been illegal as made in violation of the rules
And there was no justification for the appointments of the unsuccessful candidates in 1975 because by then the result of the 1972 examination had been announced and duly selected candidates were available
816F H 822D H 823C DJ There is no express provision in the rules as to for what period the list prepared under rule 19 can be utilised for making appointments to the service
In the absence of any provision in the rules a reasonable period must be followed during which the appointments on the basis of the result of a particular examination should be made
The list prepared by the Commission on the basis of the competitive examination of a particular year could be utilized by the Government for making appointments before the declaration of the result of the subsequent examination
If selected candidates are available for appointment on the basis of the competitive examinations of subsequent years it would be unreasonable and unjust to revise the list of earlier examination by changing norms to fill up the vacancies as that would adversely effect the rights of those selected at the subsequent examination in the matters relating to their seniority under rule 22
The 1970 examination could not be utilised as a perennial source or an exhaustible reservoir for making appointments indefinitely
The result of a particular examination must come to an end at some point of time like a dead ball in cricket
The practice of revising the list prepared by the Commission under rule 19 at the behest of the government by lowering down fixed standards and norms is subversive of the rule of law
This practice is fraught with dangers of favouritism and nepotism and it would open back door entry to the service
Once the result of the subsequent examination of 1972 was declared the Commission could not revise the list of approved candidates of 1970 examination prepared by it under rule 19 at the behest of the Government by lowering down the standard_ fixed by it
The procedure adopted in appointing the unplaced candidates of 1970 examination was unauthorised by law and it practised discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
824B H 826H The unplaced candidates were appointed to the service in breach of the rules and they form a separate class
They cannot be equated with those appointed from the first and the second lists of the 1970 examination as their appointments were made on the recommendation of the Commission
Similarly the candidates appointed to the service on the basis of the result of the competitive examination of 1972 before the unPlaced candidates were appointed formed a separate 800 class as they were also appointed in accordance with the rules
The unplaced candidates could not claim seniority over them on the basis of rule 22 as their appointments were not made on the basis of the list approved by the Commission under rule 19
827A C Even though the 21 unplaced candidates of 1970 examination have been found to have been appointed to the service illegally in breach of the rules yet the judgments and others passed by them are not rendered invalid they were appointed by competent authority with the concurrence of the High Court
They have been working in the judicial service all these years and some of them have been promoted also they have performed their functions as de facto judicial officers
The judgments and orders of a de facto judge cannot be challenged on the ground of his ineligibility for appointment
Keeping in view the period of 12 years that has elapsed the Court did not propose to strike down the appointments of the unplaced candidates
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances it would be just and proper to assign seniority to the unplaced candidates of the 1970 examination at the bottom of the list of the 1972 candidates
The 16 unplaced candidates out of the total of 37 who were successful in the 1972 examination and were approved and included by the Commission in the list prepared under rule 19 are entitled to seniority of 1972 examination on the basis of their positions in the merit list of that examination
827D G 828F H The appeal of the State of UP and the appeal of Sushil Kumar Srivastava and others allowed
Judgment of the High Court set aside
The High Court and State Government shall determine the seniority of the 21 upheld candidates as directed by the Court
829F G In the Appeal filed by DP Shukla and others directed against another judgment of the High Court the view of the High Court was consistent with the view of this Court
The appellants had appeared at the 1970 examination but were unsuccessful as they had failed to secure 35 per cent minimum marks at the viva voce test although they had secured higher marks in the aggregate than those selected and appointed
They had challenged the selection made in pursuance of the 1970 examination
830A B In the writ petition filed in this Court by Chandra Prakash Aggarwal as the petitioner had failed to obtain the minimum marks prescribed for the viva voce test although he had obtained more than 40 per cent marks in the aggregate he could not be granted the relief of appointment to the service
He was also 801 disentitled to any relief on the ground of inordinate delay there being no plausible explanation for the delay in 
challenging the validity of the 1970 examination in 1982
L830C D In the writ petition filed in this Court by Sushil Chand Srivastava and in the transferred case of PN Parasher and others the petitioners recruited to the service on the basis of the 1972 examination were aggrieved by the decision of the High Court in Rafiquddin s case as their seniority was affected adversely
This Court has already taken the view that the unplaced candidates of the 1970 examination could not be senior to the candidates appointed as a result of the 1972 examination and the petitioners were covered by that decision of the Court to get relief to that extent
830G In the writ petition filed in this Court by RP Lavania the petitioner was appointed to the service in November 1976 on the basis of the result of the 1973 examination
His grievance was that the respondents Nos 3 to 15 in the petition had been shown senior to him although they had been appointed later in time on the basis of the 1972 examination and that the selection and appointment of the said respondents were against the rules and they were not entitled to seniority over him as he was a regularly selected candidate
There was no merit in the petitioner s case
Rule 22 directs that seniority shall be determined on the basis of the year of examination which means that a person recruited to the service in pursuance of the result of a particular year of examination would rank senior to a candidate who is recruited in pursuance of the result of a subsequent year of examination although he might have been actually appointed earlier in time as after the selection of the candidates several formalities like medical examination character and antecedents verification etc are followed before the appointments are made under rule 21
Many a time this process of formalities causes delay in the making of the actual appointment with the result that sometimes persons selected on the basis of subsequent examination are appointed before the successful candidates of the earlier examination
But under rule 22 the latter shall be senior to the former irrespective of the date of appointment
The petitioner was appointed in the service on the basis of the result of the 1973 examination while the respondents Nos 3 to 15 were recruited to service on the basis of the result of the 1972 examination
Therefore under rule 22 the validity of which has not been challenged the respondents Nos 3 to 15 are entitled to be senior to the petitioner
There was no illegality in the appointments of the respondents 802 Nos 3 to 15
Their appointments in the service were made by the A State Government on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission made under Rule 19 as they had obtained the requisite aggregate marks in the written and the viva voce tests
They were appointed in accordance with the rules and were entitled to seniority in terms of rule 22
831 A H The Public Service Commission has been changing the norms fixed by it at the behest of the Government after the declaration of the results
The Commission is an independent expert body
It has to act in an independent manner
It may consult the State Government and the High Court in prescribing the norms for judging the suitability of the candidates if no norms are prescribed in the Rules
Once the Commission determines the norms and makes selection on the conclusion of a competitive examination and submits the list of the suitable candidates to the Government it should not re open the selection by lowering down the norms at the instance of the Government
If the practice of revising the results of competitive examinations by changing the norms is followed there will be confusion and the people will loss faith in the institution of the Public Service Commission and the authenticity of the selections
The Commission should take a firm stand in these matters uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government unsupported by the Rules
833A D ii The practice of appointing a retired Judge of the High Court as an expert to assist the Commission in making selections for appointments to the judicial service is not desirable
A sitting Judge of the High Court should be nominated by the Chief Justice of the State to participate in the interviews as an expert he would be in a better position to give advice to the Commission in the selection of suitable candidates and his advice would be binding on the Commission unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting such advice which must be recorded in writing by the Chairman and Members of the Commission as observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A K Yadav vs State of Haryana  The Constitution Bench had issued directions to the Public Service Commission of every state to follow this direction but it appears that in the State of UP this direction is not being followed
In future the selections for appointments to the judicial service shall be made by the Commission on the expert advice of a sitting judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice
833E H834A iii It has been noticed that generally there is a considerable 803 interregnum between the holding of the examination and the appointments of the selected candidates in these cases no system was followed in making the appointments as some of the candidates selected in the subsequent examination were appointed earlier than those selected in the earlier examination and those appointed later in time are made senior to those appointed earlier in time under Rule 22
This causes heart burning and other complications
To avoid this situation it is necessary that every effort should be made to appoint the successful candidates of a particular examination before any candidate of a subsequent examination is appointed
834B D KN Chandrasekhra  Ors
vs State of Mysore and Ors
 AIR  TN Manjula Devi vs State of Karnataka 1982 Labour and Industrial Cases 759 Durga Charan Misra vs State of orissa WP 1123 of 1986 decided on 2781987 Lila Dhar vs State of Rajasthan 1982 1 SCR 320 AK Yadav vs State of Haryana 1985 4 SCC 417 Umash Chandra Shukla vs Union of India  Ors
   Shitla Prasad Shukla vs State of UP  Ors 1986 Supp
SCC 185 and Achanti Sreenivasa Rao  Ors
vs State of Andhra Pradesh referred to