Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KARNATI RAVI& ANR. versus COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.

Decided
20 July 2017
Judges listed
KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 507 · 2017 INSC 652
Also cited as
  • (2018) 12 SCC 635 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

The issue raised in these Appeals pertains to the question whether in the matter of selection and appointment, executive instructions pertaining to the procedure of selection, which is not prescribed under the Rules can rule the field.

p. 508, margin D

2

The appellants participated in the selection for appointment as Deputy Surveyor. There is no dispute that all of them possessed the qualification for the post. The procedure for selection was, however, not available under the Rules and, therefore, by executive instructions, it was notified that the participants would be subjected to a written test and also a physical endurance test.

p. 508, margin E

3

It is the contention of the appellants that the physical endurance test is not a test prescribed under the Rules, unlike in the case of selection of a Police Constable where it is a prescribed procedure.

p. 508, margin F

4

We are afraid this contention cannot be appreciated.

p. 508, margin G

5

It may be seen that even a written examination is not a procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Rules only provide the essential qualifications for the post. The method of selection, in the absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive instructions. All SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.[KURIAN, J.J the appellants have appeared in the written examination. They were also subjected to a physical endurance test which they could not qualify. It is, thereafter, the unsuccessful candidates in the physical endurance test put up a challenge regarding the validity of the executive instructions whereby physical endurance test has been prescribed.

pp. 508–509, margin G

6

As we have already noted above, in the absence of the Rules, it is well within the powers of the Executive under Article 162 of the Constitution to provide for the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection, so long as they do not come in conflict with the Rules.

p. 509, margin B

7

That apart, all the candidates have participated in the selection, both in the written examination, though not a prescribed one, for which there is no objection, as also the physical endurance test. Having participated in the selection without any objection, they cannot later challenge the procedure.

p. 509, margin C

8

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these Appeals and the same are dismissed.

p. 509, margin D