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

552
Karnataka PSC
14.13 Mr. Rajagopal also contended that even though the State Government is a party in all
these cases, the Government has taken an unfortunate stand that it adopts the Statement of Objections
filed by the KPSC. This stand is taken by the Government to overcome the settled position in law that
in a challenge to State action, it is not open to the State to contend or argue that its own rules or orders
are bad. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:
(1) 1972 SLR 44 : STATE OF ASSAM v. RAGHAVA GOPALACHARI (para 13),
(2) 1981 (1) SLR 100 : S.S.AHMED v. STATE AND OTHERS (para 14).
14.14. In case of Application No.5013/2007, Mr. Rajagopal submitted that the Applicant
who belongs to Scheduled Caste and who holds a B.E. Degree submitted his application dated
24.5.2007 enclosing thereto experience certificate dated 14.2.2007 issued by the Karnataka Small
Industries Marketing Corporation Limited to the effect that he was working in the said Corporation as
Manager for a continuous period of 12 years and 2 months, i.e., from 3.12.1994 to 2.2.2007. As on
the last date prescribed for receipt of applications, he was aged 45 years 3 months and 7 days. His
application has been rejected by the KPSC by Endorsement dated 19.11.2007 on the ground that he
is beyond the maximum age prescribed as on the stipulated date.
14.15 He submitted that the General Recruitment Rules apply to recruitments to all State
Civil Services and to all posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka except to the
extent otherwise expressly provided. This is clear from Rule 1(3) of the General Recruitment Rules.
He also referred to Rule 3(a) of the General Recruitment Rules, Rule 13 of the Competitive Examination
Rules and Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules. Rule 6(1) starts with the phrase ‘Save as
otherwise provided in the Rules of Recruitment specially made and applicable to any service or post
prescribing higher age limit’. Rule 6(3) starts with the non-obstante clause “Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-rule (1), the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in
cases mentioned therein to the extent mentioned. A plain reading of the above said provision of the
Rule clearly shows that while the age limit stipulated by Rule 6(1) is subject to higher age limit prescribed
under the Recruitment Rules specially made for any service, Rule 6(3) operates notwithstanding anything
stated in Rule 6(1) and not notwithstanding anything stated in the Recruitment Rules made governing
a particular service. Therefore, Rule 6(3)(b) would apply in the present case. Applying Rule 6(3)(b)
would apply in the present case. Applying Rule 6(3)(b) the maximum age limit for Scheduled Caste