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

584
Karnataka PSC
“4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on clause (b) of sub rule
(3) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, to
contend that in the case of a candidate who is holding a post under the Government, he is
entitled to relaxation in age limit to the extent of such years during which he is holding the
post or 10 years whichever is less.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the relaxation in age
limit has been specifically prescribed in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted
Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 and, therefore,
the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules cannot be
applied to the candidates to be elected as per special rules. Rule 6 of General Recruitment
Rules on which reliance is placed, specifically provides in sub-rule (1) that the age limit
prescribed in that rule 6 is in cases in which provision is not made in the rules of recruitment
specially made. In which cases age relaxation can be made has been specifically provided
in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by
Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. No relaxation of upper age limit has been
provided in that special rule to in-service candidates. Therefore, Rule 6(3) of General
Recruitment Rules is not applicable to the present case and the endorsements given by
the Respondents are in accordance with law.”
The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal which decided the case of ARVAIND has not noticed or
considered the order of the High Court and, therefore, the decision rendered by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ARAVIND (supra) has to be treated as per-incurium. If the order
of the High Court had been brought to the notice of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, may be, the
co-ordinate Bench would have come to a different conclusion.
27.20 Though another Division Bench of the High Court doubted the correctness of the
decision in ANKAIAH case at the admission stage, the matter was not referred to any larger Bench
and subsequently the issue is not considered on merits, we are told. Therefore, the view taken by the
High Court in ANKAIAH case holds the field. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to what a Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court has held in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. GODFREY
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 369.
“12. …We find it difficult to understand how a Bench of two Judges in JIT RAM case
could possibly overturns or disagree with what was said by another Bench of two Judges
in MOTILAL SUGAR MILLS case. If the Bench of two judges in JIT RAM CASE
found themselves unable to agree with the law laid down in MOTILAL SUGAR MILLS
case, they could have referred JIT RAM CASE to a Larger Bench, but we do not think
it was right on their part to express their disagreement with the enunciation of the law by
a co-ordinate Bench in MOTILAL SUGAR MILLS case.”
27.21 Further, “A clause beginning with ‘notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in
some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force’,