Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

12.3The classification of vacancies is not contrary to Government Order dated 30.3.2002 and the
same stands to reason.
12.4Note-I to the 2007 Rules does not suffer from any infirmity and it is not open to courts to
interfere with the same and it is beyond the pale of scrutiny for the courts of law. In this regard, he
referred to the decision reported in ILR 1991 KAR 3102ERAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA to
contend that economic legislation cannot be struck down on the ground of crudity and equity. The
Rule could have been better worded but it cannot be struck down on the ground that it could have
been better evolved. There could be a better policy and there could be evolution of a better Rule but
that is not a ground on which the Policy could be interferred with.
12.5Persons serving in the Irrigation Department are also entitled to be considered as in-service
candidate for recruitment to the posts of AEEs. There is no bifurcation of Departments. There are
certificates issued by the competent officers that a particular person forms part of PWD or WRD and
such certificates are conclusive. In this regard he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court
reported in 1995(3) SCC 486 (MADAN LAL v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR). As of now,
he submitted, there is no bifurcation and all in-service candidates are working in the PWD. In this
regard, he referred to the letter written by the KPSC and the reply given by the PWD. As long as
there is no bifurcation and as long as employees of WRD are a part of PWD, the Engineers of the
WRD are eligible to apply.
Karnataka PSC
12.6With regard to the Schedule to the 2007 Rules and the Note, they are part of the Rules. Rule
7 of the 2007 Rules itself specifies that Competitive Examination shall comprises of maximum marks
for Personality Test. It does not say in what manner it has to be construed. All that it prescribes is
exemption. In support of his contention that Schedule and the Note form part of the Rules, the learned
Advocate General referred to the decision reported in 1975 All India Services Law Journal 619
(TARA SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS (SC). Therefore, he
contends that the contention that the Rules of 2007 are contrary cannot be sustained. The Schedule
and the Notes are part of the Rules and the Courts need not fill in the gap where the Rules are silent.
The Schedule and the Note are an integral part of the Rules and they have to be read along with the
Rules. In support of this contention, he relied on the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in AIR 2001 AP 335 (APSRTC v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
535