CHANDAN KESHAB DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of Rules 6 and 16 of the Assam Transport Services Rules, 2003 (the Rules).

(2.) CASE of the petitioners is that in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.07.2005 they applied for the post of Enforcement Checkers in the Transport Department. They were duly qualified for the posts and appeared in the written test but they were not selected. They learnt that no consultation was held with the Public Service Commission as mandated under Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The posts were also not covered by the Schedule to the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 (the Regulations) whereby certain posts were excluded from the requirement of consultation in terms of proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The rules were void as they did not contemplate consultation with the Commission. Consequently, the process of appointments was void and was liable to be cancelled.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rules and the selection process were in violation of Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution. The requirement of consultation with the Commission was mandatory in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 1987 [para 7]; The State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad and others, AIR 1967 SC 903 [paras 5, 6 and 11]; Dinkar Anna Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1999 SC 152 [para 18]; R. Hariharan and others v. K. Balachandran Nair and others, (2000)7 SCC 399 [paras 6 and 7] and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi(3) and others, (2006)4 SCC 1 [paras 3 and 4]. He submitted that even after participation the petitioner was not estopped from challenging the selection process as there could be no estoppel against law in view of law laid down in Matilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1979 SC 621.