Judgment :- 1. In all these writ petitions, the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is challenged. Therefore, all these petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. W.P.Nos.6500 to 6508/2009: 2. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’), issued a notification dated 17-4-07 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department. The number of posts notified was 52 in the said notification, which comprised 42 from amongst open competition candidates and 10 from in-service candidates. The last date for receipt of applications was 26.05.2007. Subsequently, the Commission issued another notification dated 08-08-2007, by which the number of posts was enhanced. The number of posts notified in total was 104, out of which, 84 posts were earmarked for open competition candidates and 20 for in-service candidates. 3. The Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order dated 30.03.02 regarding the reservation policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, laying down the comprehensive creamy layer policy. The said Annexure-11 to the said Government Order provides a list of persons who are not eligible to claim reservation under category II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward classes. Note 2(2) of the said Annexure provides that a candidate who is a Group-B officer in the services of the Government is not eligible for reservation under the said category of backward classes. 4. The Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of Posts (in the civil Service of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000, for short the ‘Act’, was brought into force on 16th February, 2001. Section 3 of the said Act provided that 25% of the vacancies ear marked for direct recruitment in each of the categories of general merit, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and each of the categories of other Backward Classes shall be reserved for rural candidates. The term ‘rural candidate’ had been defined in the said Act. Section 3 of the said Act provided that 25% of the vacancies ear marked for direct recruitment in each of the categories of general merit, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and each of the categories of other Backward Classes shall be reserved for rural candidates. The term ‘rural candidate’ had been defined in the said Act. Proviso to Section 3 of the said Act provided that the concept of creamy layer made applicable as per the order of the Government with regard to reservation issued under clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of a rural candidate belonging to General Merit or other Backward Classes, except category I. Exercising power under Section 5 of the said Act, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 13.02.01 which clarifies certain aspects with regard to reservation of rural candidates. The said Government Order also provides for the authorities who are competent to issue certificates for the said purpose and prescribes forms thereto. Clause I of the said Government Order provides that the concept of creamy layer shall apply to candidates belonging to general category and categories II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of Backward Classes. 5. The respondents 1 to 9 in application No.1770/08, 1792/08, 1794/08, 1801/08, 1949/08, 3403/08, 4795/08, 4796/08 and 4797/08 are presently working in the Public Works Dept. (PWD) and the Water Resources Development Dept. (WRDD) as Assistant Engineers. They applied in pursuance of the said notification. They are all eligible to be considered under the in-service quota. The respondents have claimed the benefits of belonging to different group i.e. II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward Classes categories, in favour of which categories, certain posts are reserved as per the reservation policy of the Government. 6. Respondents 1 to 9 are admittedly Group-B officers. Except respondents 2 and 4, the rest of the respondents have produced certificates issued by the Tahsildar in Form-F which is a caste certificate issued to persons belonging to Backward classes categories other than for category I. The said certificate certifies that the persons in whose favour it is issued does not come within the creamy layer as prescribed by Government of Karnataka. In respect of respondents 2 and 4, the concerned Tahsildars have refused to issue such a certificate in Form-F on the ground that they hold Group-B posts and consequently, come within the creamy layer as described in the said Govt. Order. Noticing the said anomaly and certificates issued by the Tahsildar and taking into consideration of the Government Order and the further admitted position that the respondents No. 1 to 9 holds Group-B posts in the Govt., the Commission informed the said respondents that their cases cannot be considered under the categories II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward classes. 7. Aggrieved by the said action of the Commission, respondents 1 to 9 have individually filed applications before the Tribunal. The respondents No.2 and 4 in whose favour caste certificates have not been issued by the concerned Tahsildars sought a direction to the Commission to consider their claim under the concerned category of Backward classes and consequently for a direction to call them for personality test under the said category for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. The other respondents, respondents 1, 3 and 5 to 9 have sought for a direction to the Commission not to ignore the claim of the said respondents for selection under the respective categories of Backward Classes. In addition to the aforesaid applications, several other applications had been filed and pending before the Tribunal. In W.P.Nos.6418 and 6419: 8. The respondents 1 and 2 in application Nos.1753/08 and 1546/09 are similarly placed as that of respondents 1 to 9 in the aforesaid writ petitions and were not interviewed on the ground that they are claiming reservation on the basis of false caste certificates. Challenging the said action of the Commission, Application No.1753/08 and 1746/08 were filed. 9. The respondents No.1 to 4 in Application Nos.1756, 1757, 1758 and 1759 of 2008 are all working as Assistant Engineers in the Department of Public Works. They applied under the general category in pursuance of the notification issued by the Commission for recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers under the ‘in service’ quota. The respondents also claimed the benefit of reservation under General Merit (rural) category. In support of their claim, they have produced certificates in Form 2 issued by the concerned authorities. The respondents were issued interview letters requiring them to appear or the personality test by the KPSC. The respondents also claimed the benefit of reservation under General Merit (rural) category. In support of their claim, they have produced certificates in Form 2 issued by the concerned authorities. The respondents were issued interview letters requiring them to appear or the personality test by the KPSC. The said respondents were called for interview under the General Merit (rural) category as they were eligible under the same. The respondents were not eligible to be called for interview if their candidature were to be considered under the general category. The respondents are admittedly Group ‘B’ officers in the services of the State. On the ground that they come within the creamy layer as prescribed in the Govt. order dt. 30-3-02. They were not interviewed. If they are not considered under General merit (rural) category they were not eligible to be interviewed. Aggrieved by the action of the Commission in not extending the benefit of General Merit (Rural) category, the said respondents filed applications before the Tribunal seeking for a direction to the KPSC to permit them to participate in the personality test. In the said applications, they also sought for a declaration that portion of the Government Order dated 30-3-02 bringing the General Merit (rural) category under creamy layer concept and prescribing Form 1 as illegal and invalid. 10. The applicants in Application No.5013/07 corresponding to WP No.6416/07 – R. Ravichandra and Application No.5015/07 corresponding to WP No.6417/07 – K.C. Shivakumar, working in other Government Departments. They have not been interviewed by the KPSC on the ground that they are over aged. They contended that Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules applies to the case and they are entitled for the benefit of age relaxation as contained therein, in which event, the KPSC committed a grave illegality in not calling them for interview. 11. The petitioner-G. Kumar is working as an Assistant Engineer, presently on deputation in Bangalore Development Authority. He was appointment as an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department during 1991. His recruitment was in terms of the Rules called the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 which came into force from 17.8.1989. It is stated that the W.P.No.6510 to 6513/2009: Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 also came to be framed simultaneously. He was appointment as an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department during 1991. His recruitment was in terms of the Rules called the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 which came into force from 17.8.1989. It is stated that the W.P.No.6510 to 6513/2009: Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 also came to be framed simultaneously. Thus there were separate and distinct recruitment rules pertaining to Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department and Karnataka Public Works Irrigation Department. By a notification dated 22.2.2007 the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers Division-1 by Competitive Examination) Rules, 2007 Prescribing the method of recruitment to the post of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Division-1), mode of conducting competitive examination, preparation of select list, etc., was issued. The Public Works Commission vide their notification dated 17.4.2007 invited applications from eligible candidates for filing up 52 posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Division1) out of which 10 posts are earmarked for in-service candidates in KPWD. Petitioner submitted his application as against the said notification. In the format of the application at Sl.No.7, it is specifically stated as under:- “Do you claim in-service quota?: Yes O, No O For PWD employees only. If so, shade the appropriate circle” 12. On 8.8.2007 yet another notification came to be issued enhancing the number of posts from 52 to 104 out of which 84 posts were earmarked for open competition candidates and 20 posts for in-service candidates. Petitioner who belongs to category 2A claimed reservation under 2A. Respondents 3 to 8 have been selected and appointment in Water Resources Department (for short WRD) during the year 20022003. The petitioner contends that the two departments are separate entities having separate recruitment rules. On 14.1.1999 KPW (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers) Special Rules, 1998 was issued. Rule 7(2) (b) of the said Rules specifically provides the grace marks of 5% for each year of service subject to maximum of 30% shall be added to the percentage of total marks secured by a candidate in the qualifying examination, if such candidate has served on contract basis as Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer as the case may be in the Irrigation Department of the State. A candidate who is working on contract basis in PWD is not eligible for such weightage of 5% for each year of service like a contract engineer in the Irrigation Department. Thus, the recruitment rules of two departments operate in separate fields and departments are separate. It is only after the publication of marks list and eligibility list with reference to register number the petitioner learnt that ineligible WRD Engineer candidates have been considered under in-service post. The petitioner was not aware of the said fact at the time of participating in the written examination. It is only after coming to know of the same he has preferred this Writ Petition challenging their selection among other grounds. 13. The Public Service Commission in the reply before the Tribunal traversing the aforesaid allegations stated that after receipt of applications from officials working in Water Resources Department including respondents 3 to 8 clarification has been sought from PWD in this regard. PWD as per letter dated 31-1-2008 a photocopy of which is enclosed as Annexure-R1 has informed that the applications forwarded by the applicants through the Chief Engineer, PWD [Communication & Buildings] or Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation only should be treated as applications from in-service candidates. Accordingly, applications of in-service candidates including respondents 3 to 8 forwarded through the Chief Engineer, PWD (Communication & Buildings) or Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation only have been entertained. It is learnt that though PWD and Water Resources Development Organisation are bifurcated the separation of the two departments is not fully complete and that common seniority/gradation list of Assistant Engineers is being operated for the purpose of promotion. It is in this circumstance, respondents 3 to 8 have been permitted to apply for the post. Any way, as far as this contention of the applicant is concerned the same has to be traversed by respondent No.1-State of Karnataka. 14. The State at Para 6 of the statement of objections have made their position clear. They submitted that, they have instructed the KPSC not to consider a person working in the Government as in-service candidate, except the Department of Public Works and Irrigation. This instruction came to be issued by this respondent considering the fact that Public Works Department has issued a common seniority list of Assistant Engineers of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department vide Notification dated 29-3-2003. This instruction came to be issued by this respondent considering the fact that Public Works Department has issued a common seniority list of Assistant Engineers of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department vide Notification dated 29-3-2003. Vertical bifurcation of both Public Works Department and Irrigation Department has not yet taken place. In other words, it is submitted that the process of bifurcation of two services namely, Public Works Department and Irrigation Department is yet to complete. In fact, the process of bifurcating the Public Works Service and Irrigation service is being taken up. In the process, it is found that many officers who exercise their option at one point of time came to be promoted to the next higher cadre or retired from service and consequently, the said option exercised by them has become infructuous. In view of this necessary steps are being taken up to invite fresh option from among the officers in various cadres. By taking into account of this fact, and considering the fact that Assistant Engineers appointed in Irrigation Department are also being considered for promotion along with Engineers appointed in the Public Works Department, the Engineers appointed in the Irrigation Department are entitled to have the equal benefit in respect of the recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers Division-I in Public Works Department and accordingly, the KPSC was instructed to consider the Irrigation personnel as in-service candidates. 15. The State has preferred a detailed counter before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal making their stand very clear in so far as the concept of creamy layer and the Govt. Orders giving effect to the said creamy layer policy. They contend that a person who falls within the creamy layer is a person reaching advanced level or status. A person who does not belong to either SC or ST or any of the Backward classes notified by virtue of the provisions contained under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is deemed to have reached advance social level or status and therefore is ineligible for reservation as a rural candidate. To determine whether a person who reached an advance social level or status falls within the creamy layer, economic status, namely the income limit and properties held either belonging to him or his family is also to be taken into account. To determine whether a person who reached an advance social level or status falls within the creamy layer, economic status, namely the income limit and properties held either belonging to him or his family is also to be taken into account. As such, considering this aspect and by referring to these facts and also following a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to the concept of creamy layer, the Govt. Order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) came to be issued. It is just and proper and is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 16. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that the very object/concept of reservation is to revise the status of a group of persons to reach the level of persons who are at the higher level. That being the position, it is to be noted that admittedly, the persons who belong to other Backward Classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution are deemed to have reached advanced social level or status than that of the persons who do not belong to the categories specified under Article 16(4). Thus, the impugned Government Order while insisting the concept of creamy layer for persons belonging to other backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution prescribes the creamy layer to the candidates belonging to general merit. The claim of the candidates could be extended provided it is their case that the persons belonging to Backward Classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution and general merit candidates are equal in status. Such plea cannot be entertained for the simple reason that under Article 16(4) the power is conferred upon the Govt. to identity Backward Classes. In view of the settled position, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order vide Annexure-5. The above narrated facts, position of law unmistakably demonstrate that the applicants have not made out any case which warrants interference in the impugned order and hence, they are liable to be dismissed in law. 17. The respondent No.2, 4, 6, and 9 have filed separate objections. They contend, by virtue of note 1 in the Govt. order, rule for reservation does not apply to direct recruitment of posts which insists on a prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post as a qualification or eligibility. 17. The respondent No.2, 4, 6, and 9 have filed separate objections. They contend, by virtue of note 1 in the Govt. order, rule for reservation does not apply to direct recruitment of posts which insists on a prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post as a qualification or eligibility. In the instant case, pursuant to notification dt. 17-4-07 and 8-8-07, the respondents have applied for appointment as in service candidates, i.e. by virtue of having experience in the post of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, these respondents fall under the exempted category and the Rule contained is inapplicable. Secondly, it was contended, the State Govt. has accepted the order of the KAT in terms of the direction dated 02-03-04 issued by the Principal Secretary, PWD. PWD has directed KPSC to implement the order of the KAT dated 19-12-08. A copy of the said direction is produced as Annexure 2. KPSC is only a recruiting body which is required to make recruitment in accordance with Rules and Regulations laid down by the Legislation and the Govt. It lacks any locus whatsoever to maintain the above writ petition when the decision of the KAT has been accepted by the State Government. On that ground they want the writ petitions to be dismissed. Even in the other batch of writ petitions the respondents have filed counter raising the very same grounds. 18. The challenge in these applications was for applying the concept of creamy layer to candidates belonging to general category on the ground that the same is in violation of Sec.3 of the Act. The respondents claim, as per the Kannada version of the Act, proviso to Sec. 3 provided that the concept of creamy layer is not applicable to General Merit and category I of Backward Classes. Therefore, the Govt. Order dated 13-2-01 would not have prescribed that creamy layer is applicable to General Merit and hence the Govt. order is in violation of Section 3 of the Act. 19. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of 40 applications including the applications of the said respondents 1 to 4. The applications are allowed by holding that the Govt. Order dated 13-02-01 which brings the General Merit (Rural) candidates under creamy layer and prescribes Form 1 is in violation of Section 3 of the said Act. 19. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of 40 applications including the applications of the said respondents 1 to 4. The applications are allowed by holding that the Govt. Order dated 13-02-01 which brings the General Merit (Rural) candidates under creamy layer and prescribes Form 1 is in violation of Section 3 of the said Act. The Tribunal also held that Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules applies and age relaxation is permissible. There is no complete bifurcation of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department and therefore persons working in both the departments are eligible to apply for the posts in pursuance of the notification. Aggrieved by the said common order dated 19-12-08, the petitioner – Commission has preferred this batch of writ petitions. One petition is preferred by the employees of Public Works Engineering Department. 20. The points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are as under: (1) Whether the Karnataka Public Service Commission has locus standi to challenge the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal when the Government has accepted the said judgment and is seeking to implement the same. (2) Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of relaxation of age provided under Rule 6(3b) of the General Recruitment Rules? (3) Whether the creamy layer policy is applicable to in service candidates? (4) Whether the employees who are working in WRDO are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification. POINT NO.1 LOCUS STANDI OF KPSC Whether the KPSC has locus standi to challenge the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal when the Government has accepted its judgment and seek to implement the same? 21. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Karnataka Public Service Commission has no locus standi to prefer these petitions against the order passed by the Tribunal on merits as it cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. If in course of the order, the Tribunal alleged malafides against the KPSC and had passed any strictures to that extent, only the KPSC can be said to be an aggrieved person and they are entitled to challenge the same before this Court. If in course of the order, the Tribunal alleged malafides against the KPSC and had passed any strictures to that extent, only the KPSC can be said to be an aggrieved person and they are entitled to challenge the same before this Court. On the question of interpretation of a provision of law, or a Government Order, when the Tribunal has found fault with the interpretation by the KPSC and has rejected the said interpretation of the rules and law and thereafter, the Government did not challenge the same and on the contrary accepted the same, the KPSC has no locus standi to challenge the order of the Tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied on several judgments of the Apex Court. 22. Per contra, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the KPSC contended that, not only the KPSC has a right to challenge the order of the Tribunal if any adverse remarks are made against the KPSC but also on merits, if the interpretation placed by the KPSC is not accepted by the Tribunal. He further contends that the KPSC is an Authority constituted under the Constitution and it is expected to scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field and if the interpretation placed by the Government or the authorities concerned is contrary to the statutory provisions, they have a right to challenge the said order before this Court and in support of his contention he relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs BALOJI BADHAVATH AND OTHERS [(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 999. 23. Chapter II of Part-XIV of the Constitution deals with the Public Service Commission. Article 315 deals with the establishment of Public Service Commission for the Union as well as the State and Article 320 deals with the functions of the Public Service Commission which reads as under: 320. 23. Chapter II of Part-XIV of the Constitution deals with the Public Service Commission. Article 315 deals with the establishment of Public Service Commission for the Union as well as the State and Article 320 deals with the functions of the Public Service Commission which reads as under: 320. Functions of Public Service Commissions (1) It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively (2) It shall also be the duty of the Union Public Service Commission, if requested by any two or more State so to do, to assist those States in framing and operating schemes of joint recruitment for any services for which candidates possessing special qualifications are required (3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; (c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters; (d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has served under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to the amount of any such award, and it shall be the duty of a Public Service Commission to advice on any matter so referred to them and on any other matter which the President, or, as the case may be, the Governor, of the State, may refer to them; Provided that the President as respects the all India services and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor, as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted (4) Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public Service Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in which any provision referred to in clause (4) of Article 16 may be made or as respects the manner in which effect maybe given to the provisions of Article 335 (5) All regulations made under the proviso to clause (3) by the President or the Governor of a State shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before each House of Parliament or the House or each House of the Legislature of the State, as the case may be, as soon as possible after they are made, and shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as both Houses of Parliament or the House or both Houses of the Legislature of the State may make during the 24. The Apex Court, in the case of State of U.P. vs RAFIQUDDIN [AIR 87 Supp SCC 401], dealing with the functioning of the Public Service Commission has held as under:- “30. The Commission is an independent expert body. It has to act in an independent manner in making the selection on the prescribed norms. It may consult the State Government and the High Court in prescribing the norms for judging the suitability of candidates if no norms are prescribed in the Rules. Once the Commission determines the norms and makes selection on the conclusion of the competitive examination and submits list of the suitable candidates to the Government it should not reopen the selection by lowering down the norms at the instance of the Government. If the practice of revising the result of competitive examination by changing norms is followed there will be confusion and the people will lose faith in the institution of Public Service Commission and the authenticity of selection. ….. We are of the opinion that the Commission should take firm stand in these matters in making the selection in accordance with the norms fixed by law or fixed by it in accordance with law uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government unsupported by the Rules” Again the Apex Court, in the case of INDER PARKASH GUPTA Vs STATE OF J & K [ 2004(6) SCC 786 ] held as under:- “The Public Service Commission is a body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its own Public Service Commission to meet the constitutional requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the Constitution. Appointment to service in a State must be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and in conformity with the autonomy and freedom of executive action. Article 133 of the Constitution imposes duty upon the State to conduct examination for the appointment to the service of the State. The Public Service Commission is also required to be consulted on the matters enumerated under Section 133. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. It may be that for certain purposes, for example, for the purpose of shortlisting, it can lay down its own procedure. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. It may be that for certain purposes, for example, for the purpose of shortlisting, it can lay down its own procedure. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. It cannot take any action which per se would be violative of the statutory rules or makes the same inoperative for all intent and purport. Even for the purpose of shortlisting, the Commission cannot fix any kind of cut-off marks.” Again in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS [ 2003 (11) SCC 559 ], it is held as under:- “11. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its limits too. Independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure of the Government, as submitted on behalf of the appellant Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the provisions of the law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of the State Government. It cannot impose it is own policy decision in a matter beyond its purview. Again, it is stated as under: It is to be noted that under clause (3) of Article 320, the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, has to be consulted by the Government relating to methods of recruitment in civil services and for civil posts, promotions and transfers as well as about suitability of candidates etc., The consultation may also be in regard to disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government. We then find that clause (4) particularly provides that nothing in clause (3) shall require consultation of the Commission in respect to the manner in which any provisions referred to in Article 16(4) may be made or the manner in which the effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335. Article 16(4) deals with reservations and Article 335 pertains to consideration of reservation consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of the administration. Article 16(4) deals with reservations and Article 335 pertains to consideration of reservation consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of the administration. As indicated earlier, clause (4) of Article 320 clearly provides that consultation of the Commission would not be necessary in the matters relating to Articles 16(4) and 335. Therefore, it would be a matter of policy to be decided by the State Government as to what measures, if necessary, may be provided regarding reservations vis-à-vis maintenance of efficiency in services. Where no special qualification or any prescribed standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility criteria is provided by the Rules or the State, it would not be for the Commission to impose any extra qualification/standard separately for maintaining minimum efficiency which, it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation with the Commission, in such matters, is envisaged in view of clause (4) of Article 320 of the Constitution.” 25. Therefore, the Public Service Commission is a body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its own Public Service Commission to meet the constitutional requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the Constitution. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its limits too. The Commission is an independent expert body. It has to act in an independent manner in making the selection on the prescribed norms. Independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is not supposed to function under any pressure of the Government. Appointment to service in a State must be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and in conformity with the autonomy and freedom of executive action. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. The Commission should take firm stand in making the selection in accordance with the norms fixed by law or fixed by it in accordance with law uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government and unsupported by the Rules. 26. The Karnataka State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959 for the performance of its functions and to provide for the exercise of certain additional functions by the Commission. 26. The Karnataka State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959 for the performance of its functions and to provide for the exercise of certain additional functions by the Commission. The said enactment was passed for the performance of the functions of the Commission under the Constitution or under any law for the time being in force. Chapter III deals with additional functions of the Commission. One such additional function as contained in Section 16 is the conduct of service examinations. Such examinations which persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State are required to pass under the conditions of recruitment of service are applicable to them and which may be notified by Government under this Section, and such other examinations as may be notified by Government from time to time shall, with effect from such date as the Government may appoint, be conducted by the Commission in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. Similarly, the Commission is also empowered under Section 17 as the authority competent to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of local authorities and it shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct such examinations. Section 18 of the said Act empowers the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act in consultation with the Commission by notification in the official gazette. Accordingly, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 15 and 18 of the Act after consultation with the Karnataka Public Service Commission has made the Rules called ‘The Karnataka Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1973’. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that, when the Commission is consulted in regard to the making of rules of recruitment relating to any service the Commission shall advice on all matters relating to recruitment including the methods of recruitment, minimum qualifications, syllabus for written examination if any, principles to be followed in recruitment and such other matters. Rule 4 deals with direct recruitment by examination whereas Rules 5 deals with recruitment by selection. In both the cases the Commission shall scrutinize the applications received and issue admission certificate to such of those whose applications are in order and who fulfill the required conditions. Rule 4 deals with direct recruitment by examination whereas Rules 5 deals with recruitment by selection. In both the cases the Commission shall scrutinize the applications received and issue admission certificate to such of those whose applications are in order and who fulfill the required conditions. In case of direct recruitment by selection, it shall scrutinize the applications received and made selections in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973. When the Commission is consulted in regard to the suitability of any candidate or candidates for promotion, Rule 6 empowers the Commission for recruitment by promotion. The said promotion may be by selection or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Thus, a free hand is given to the Commission and it is the Government which has to consult the Commission and not the vice versa. 27. From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that, when once the assistance of the Commission is sought for in the matter of recruitment either by direct recruitment by examination or direct recruitment by selection or recruitment by promotion, the authority has to independently act in accordance with the Rules and make the selection. It is not obliged to act as per the dictate of the executive in these matters. That is the reason why an independent authority like the Commission was provided under the Indian Constitution. State Legislatures have passed enactments giving effect to the aforesaid constitutional provisions. It is the Government, which has to consult the Commission. The Commission is under no statutory obligation to consult the Government. The recruitment to be made by the Commission should be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and the Acts and Rules governing the same. In fact Rule 11 categorically states appointments, promotions and transfers, made by any Appointing Authority in contravention of the relevant rules of recruitment and the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1958 shall be reported to the Government by the Commission. The Government shall furnish to the Commission any information which the Commission considers it necessary for consideration of any matter referred to it for consultation unless it is certified by the Chief Secretary to Government that same cannot be furnished without undue labour or should be withheld in the public interest. 28. The Government shall furnish to the Commission any information which the Commission considers it necessary for consideration of any matter referred to it for consultation unless it is certified by the Chief Secretary to Government that same cannot be furnished without undue labour or should be withheld in the public interest. 28. It is in the background of the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the locus standi of the Commission to challenge the orders passed by the judicial authorities finding fault with the selections made by it, is to be considered. 29. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs P CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY AND OTHERS ( 2006 (8) SCC 330 ) dealing with a case where the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission which had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh which had upheld the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal held as under:- “20. Rule 6 of the Public Service Commission Rules, whereupon Mr. Prabhakar placed reliance is not of much significance. It operates in a different field. It will have no application in a case of this nature. The law cannot be permitted to act unfairly. It cannot be arbitrary. The country is governed by a rule of law and not by men. Thus, although a mistake had been committed by the State, the same cannot be directed to be perpetrated only because the Commission will have to undertake the selection process again and particularly, in view of the fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh did not question the order passed by the Tribunal”. 30. Relying on this judgment it was contended firstly that, the Public Service Commission had no right to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court. Secondly it was contended that, when the State Government has accepted the order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the Commission has no locus standi to challenge the same before the Apex Court. Secondly it was contended that, when the State Government has accepted the order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the Commission has no locus standi to challenge the same before the Apex Court. Though the question of locus standi was not decided expressly in the aforesaid judgment, in the facts of that particular case, the Apex Court held the grievance of the Commission that it has to undertake the selection process again if the order passed by the High Court as well as the Tribunal stands was not a good reason for interfering with the said order. In that context it was held that the person who committed the mistake was the Government and the Government has accepted the judgment, the appeal preferred by the Commission to the Supreme Court lacks merit. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the said judgment lays down the proposition of law that the Commission has no locus standi to challenge an order passed by a judicial Tribunal. In fact, the learned Judge who passed the said judgment in the Apex Court, had an occasion to consider the said question specifically in a subsequent judgment where the said portion of the earlier judgment was brought to his notice. After noticing the same, the learned Judge has specifically clarified the legal position in the case of ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs BALOJI BADHAVATH AND OTHERS [(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 999. Dealing with the question of locus standi of the Public Service Commission to challenge the orders it was held as under:- “46. So far as the question of locus standi of the appellant to file this special leave petition is concerned, we are of the opinion that it has the locus standi. The High Court not only has set aside GOMs dated 31-12-1997 but it has also set aside Notification dated 27-12-2007. If the High Court’s judgment is to be implemented, a fresh selection procedure has to be undertaken by the appellant. Furthermore, it terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, in the event, finds merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents may set aside the entire judgment although another respondent had not appealed thereagainst. The Commission had undertaken the task of holding preliminary examination. Furthermore, it terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, in the event, finds merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents may set aside the entire judgment although another respondent had not appealed thereagainst. The Commission had undertaken the task of holding preliminary examination. It had followed the procedure laid down in its notification issued in this behalf and the GOMs issued by the State. It, therefore, could maintain a writ petition”. 31. While referring to the aforesaid judgment in P CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY’s case, the Apex Court held as under:- “48. … In Chandra Mouleswara Reddy case, the State had accepted the judgment of the High Court. A mistake on the part of the State to issue the impugned direction was in question therein. It was in that context the aforementioned observations had been made. Therein 19 posts were to be filled up whereas a direction was issued to fill up only ten posts. The Tribunal directed the State to fill up all 19 Posts. The State of Andhra Pradesh did not question the order of the Tribunal. Even the commission was not required to carry out any fresh exercise to comply with the direction of the Tribunal. As the order of the Tribunal was not found to be unjustified, the High Court refused to interfere therewith. The observations were made only in the aforementioned context”. 32. Therefore, it is clear in P CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY’s case, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Commission was not required to carry out any fresh exercise to comply with the direction of the Tribunal. However, in BALOJI BADHAVATH’s case, if the order of the High Court is to be implemented, the Commission had to undertake the task of preliminary examination which had been set aside by the High Court. It is in that context it was held that, if the recruitment process conducted by the Commission, if it is found fault with and set aside the same and if the Commission because of that order is compelled to redo the whole thing, then the Commission is an aggrieved person. 33. The Commission is a constitutional authority created under the Constitution. 33. The Commission is a constitutional authority created under the Constitution. It has to function in terms of the constitutional provisions giving effect to the object with which it is constituted under the Constitution and the State Legislature defines its functions, passes a law and specific functions are assigned to it under the statute, the Commission has to work strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. When in the course of discharging its functions it is of the opinion that these actions are in accordance with the statutory provisions and if it feels the recruitment done by them is unnecessarily found fault with by a judicial body whose decision is contrary to the statutory provisions certainly they have a right to challenge the said order passed by the judicial authority. The reason for setting at naught the recruitment process is not the criteria. It is the ultimate result. If any action of the Commission is found fault with and the Commission has to redo the thing over again and if the Commission feels their action is strictly in accordance with law, they have a right to challenge the judgment of a judicial body which has found fault with their action. It is immaterial whether the action of the Commission is found fault with by making any allegations against the Commission or attributing mala fides or purely on procedural irregularity or being contrary to law. The contention that the Commission has nothing to do with the appointment in any particular department after the selection process is over and if the selection is set aside, they cannot be held to be aggrieved persons, cannot be accepted. Though the Commission has no personal interest in any of these recruitment, as a constitutional authority when it has conducted the selection in accordance with the statutory provisions and if such selection is found fault which as improper or illegal, the Commission being an independent authority, if it wants to justify its actions and show that their actions are strictly in accordance with law, that can be done only by challenging that order in the superior Court. Therefore, their right to challenge the order finding fault with the selection process cannot be taken away. Therefore, their right to challenge the order finding fault with the selection process cannot be taken away. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Commission has the locus standi to challenge the order of a judicial authority, or a quasi judicial authority if their selections are set at naught by them not only on the ground of mala fides but even being contrary to law. It is open to them to show to the superior Courts that the recruitment or selection process which they have done is strictly in accordance with law and it has been unnecessarily interfered by a judicial or quasi judicial authority. POINT NO.2 Judgment :- 1. In all these writ petitions, the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is challenged. Therefore, all these petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. W.P.Nos.6500 to 6508/2009: 2. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’), issued a notification dated 17-4-07 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department. The number of posts notified was 52 in the said notification, which comprised 42 from amongst open competition candidates and 10 from in-service candidates. The last date for receipt of applications was 26.05.2007. Subsequently, the Commission issued another notification dated 08-08-2007, by which the number of posts was enhanced. The number of posts notified in total was 104, out of which, 84 posts were earmarked for open competition candidates and 20 for in-service candidates. 3. The Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order dated 30.03.02 regarding the reservation policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, laying down the comprehensive creamy layer policy. The said Annexure-11 to the said Government Order provides a list of persons who are not eligible to claim reservation under category II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward classes. Note 2(2) of the said Annexure provides that a candidate who is a Group-B officer in the services of the Government is not eligible for reservation under the said category of backward classes. 4. The Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of Posts (in the civil Service of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000, for short the ‘Act’, was brought into force on 16th February, 2001. 4. The Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of Posts (in the civil Service of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000, for short the ‘Act’, was brought into force on 16th February, 2001. Section 3 of the said Act provided that 25% of the vacancies ear marked for direct recruitment in each of the categories of general merit, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and each of the categories of other Backward Classes shall be reserved for rural candidates. The term ‘rural candidate’ had been defined in the said Act. Proviso to Section 3 of the said Act provided that the concept of creamy layer made applicable as per the order of the Government with regard to reservation issued under clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of a rural candidate belonging to General Merit or other Backward Classes, except category I. Exercising power under Section 5 of the said Act, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 13.02.01 which clarifies certain aspects with regard to reservation of rural candidates. The said Government Order also provides for the authorities who are competent to issue certificates for the said purpose and prescribes forms thereto. Clause I of the said Government Order provides that the concept of creamy layer shall apply to candidates belonging to general category and categories II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of Backward Classes. 5. The respondents 1 to 9 in application No.1770/08, 1792/08, 1794/08, 1801/08, 1949/08, 3403/08, 4795/08, 4796/08 and 4797/08 are presently working in the Public Works Dept. (PWD) and the Water Resources Development Dept. (WRDD) as Assistant Engineers. They applied in pursuance of the said notification. They are all eligible to be considered under the in-service quota. The respondents have claimed the benefits of belonging to different group i.e. II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward Classes categories, in favour of which categories, certain posts are reserved as per the reservation policy of the Government. 6. Respondents 1 to 9 are admittedly Group-B officers. Except respondents 2 and 4, the rest of the respondents have produced certificates issued by the Tahsildar in Form-F which is a caste certificate issued to persons belonging to Backward classes categories other than for category I. The said certificate certifies that the persons in whose favour it is issued does not come within the creamy layer as prescribed by Government of Karnataka. In respect of respondents 2 and 4, the concerned Tahsildars have refused to issue such a certificate in Form-F on the ground that they hold Group-B posts and consequently, come within the creamy layer as described in the said Govt. Order. Noticing the said anomaly and certificates issued by the Tahsildar and taking into consideration of the Government Order and the further admitted position that the respondents No. 1 to 9 holds Group-B posts in the Govt., the Commission informed the said respondents that their cases cannot be considered under the categories II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward classes. 7. Aggrieved by the said action of the Commission, respondents 1 to 9 have individually filed applications before the Tribunal. The respondents No.2 and 4 in whose favour caste certificates have not been issued by the concerned Tahsildars sought a direction to the Commission to consider their claim under the concerned category of Backward classes and consequently for a direction to call them for personality test under the said category for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. The other respondents, respondents 1, 3 and 5 to 9 have sought for a direction to the Commission not to ignore the claim of the said respondents for selection under the respective categories of Backward Classes. In addition to the aforesaid applications, several other applications had been filed and pending before the Tribunal. In W.P.Nos.6418 and 6419: 8. The respondents 1 and 2 in application Nos.1753/08 and 1546/09 are similarly placed as that of respondents 1 to 9 in the aforesaid writ petitions and were not interviewed on the ground that they are claiming reservation on the basis of false caste certificates. Challenging the said action of the Commission, Application No.1753/08 and 1746/08 were filed. 9. The respondents No.1 to 4 in Application Nos.1756, 1757, 1758 and 1759 of 2008 are all working as Assistant Engineers in the Department of Public Works. They applied under the general category in pursuance of the notification issued by the Commission for recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers under the ‘in service’ quota. The respondents also claimed the benefit of reservation under General Merit (rural) category. In support of their claim, they have produced certificates in Form 2 issued by the concerned authorities. The respondents were issued interview letters requiring them to appear or the personality test by the KPSC. The respondents also claimed the benefit of reservation under General Merit (rural) category. In support of their claim, they have produced certificates in Form 2 issued by the concerned authorities. The respondents were issued interview letters requiring them to appear or the personality test by the KPSC. The said respondents were called for interview under the General Merit (rural) category as they were eligible under the same. The respondents were not eligible to be called for interview if their candidature were to be considered under the general category. The respondents are admittedly Group ‘B’ officers in the services of the State. On the ground that they come within the creamy layer as prescribed in the Govt. order dt. 30-3-02. They were not interviewed. If they are not considered under General merit (rural) category they were not eligible to be interviewed. Aggrieved by the action of the Commission in not extending the benefit of General Merit (Rural) category, the said respondents filed applications before the Tribunal seeking for a direction to the KPSC to permit them to participate in the personality test. In the said applications, they also sought for a declaration that portion of the Government Order dated 30-3-02 bringing the General Merit (rural) category under creamy layer concept and prescribing Form 1 as illegal and invalid. 10. The applicants in Application No.5013/07 corresponding to WP No.6416/07 – R. Ravichandra and Application No.5015/07 corresponding to WP No.6417/07 – K.C. Shivakumar, working in other Government Departments. They have not been interviewed by the KPSC on the ground that they are over aged. They contended that Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules applies to the case and they are entitled for the benefit of age relaxation as contained therein, in which event, the KPSC committed a grave illegality in not calling them for interview. 11. The petitioner-G. Kumar is working as an Assistant Engineer, presently on deputation in Bangalore Development Authority. He was appointment as an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department during 1991. His recruitment was in terms of the Rules called the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 which came into force from 17.8.1989. It is stated that the W.P.No.6510 to 6513/2009: Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 also came to be framed simultaneously. He was appointment as an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department during 1991. His recruitment was in terms of the Rules called the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 which came into force from 17.8.1989. It is stated that the W.P.No.6510 to 6513/2009: Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 also came to be framed simultaneously. Thus there were separate and distinct recruitment rules pertaining to Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department and Karnataka Public Works Irrigation Department. By a notification dated 22.2.2007 the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers Division-1 by Competitive Examination) Rules, 2007 Prescribing the method of recruitment to the post of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Division-1), mode of conducting competitive examination, preparation of select list, etc., was issued. The Public Works Commission vide their notification dated 17.4.2007 invited applications from eligible candidates for filing up 52 posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Division1) out of which 10 posts are earmarked for in-service candidates in KPWD. Petitioner submitted his application as against the said notification. In the format of the application at Sl.No.7, it is specifically stated as under:- “Do you claim in-service quota?: Yes O, No O For PWD employees only. If so, shade the appropriate circle” 12. On 8.8.2007 yet another notification came to be issued enhancing the number of posts from 52 to 104 out of which 84 posts were earmarked for open competition candidates and 20 posts for in-service candidates. Petitioner who belongs to category 2A claimed reservation under 2A. Respondents 3 to 8 have been selected and appointment in Water Resources Department (for short WRD) during the year 20022003. The petitioner contends that the two departments are separate entities having separate recruitment rules. On 14.1.1999 KPW (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers) Special Rules, 1998 was issued. Rule 7(2) (b) of the said Rules specifically provides the grace marks of 5% for each year of service subject to maximum of 30% shall be added to the percentage of total marks secured by a candidate in the qualifying examination, if such candidate has served on contract basis as Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer as the case may be in the Irrigation Department of the State. A candidate who is working on contract basis in PWD is not eligible for such weightage of 5% for each year of service like a contract engineer in the Irrigation Department. Thus, the recruitment rules of two departments operate in separate fields and departments are separate. It is only after the publication of marks list and eligibility list with reference to register number the petitioner learnt that ineligible WRD Engineer candidates have been considered under in-service post. The petitioner was not aware of the said fact at the time of participating in the written examination. It is only after coming to know of the same he has preferred this Writ Petition challenging their selection among other grounds. 13. The Public Service Commission in the reply before the Tribunal traversing the aforesaid allegations stated that after receipt of applications from officials working in Water Resources Department including respondents 3 to 8 clarification has been sought from PWD in this regard. PWD as per letter dated 31-1-2008 a photocopy of which is enclosed as Annexure-R1 has informed that the applications forwarded by the applicants through the Chief Engineer, PWD [Communication & Buildings] or Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation only should be treated as applications from in-service candidates. Accordingly, applications of in-service candidates including respondents 3 to 8 forwarded through the Chief Engineer, PWD (Communication & Buildings) or Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation only have been entertained. It is learnt that though PWD and Water Resources Development Organisation are bifurcated the separation of the two departments is not fully complete and that common seniority/gradation list of Assistant Engineers is being operated for the purpose of promotion. It is in this circumstance, respondents 3 to 8 have been permitted to apply for the post. Any way, as far as this contention of the applicant is concerned the same has to be traversed by respondent No.1-State of Karnataka. 14. The State at Para 6 of the statement of objections have made their position clear. They submitted that, they have instructed the KPSC not to consider a person working in the Government as in-service candidate, except the Department of Public Works and Irrigation. This instruction came to be issued by this respondent considering the fact that Public Works Department has issued a common seniority list of Assistant Engineers of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department vide Notification dated 29-3-2003. This instruction came to be issued by this respondent considering the fact that Public Works Department has issued a common seniority list of Assistant Engineers of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department vide Notification dated 29-3-2003. Vertical bifurcation of both Public Works Department and Irrigation Department has not yet taken place. In other words, it is submitted that the process of bifurcation of two services namely, Public Works Department and Irrigation Department is yet to complete. In fact, the process of bifurcating the Public Works Service and Irrigation service is being taken up. In the process, it is found that many officers who exercise their option at one point of time came to be promoted to the next higher cadre or retired from service and consequently, the said option exercised by them has become infructuous. In view of this necessary steps are being taken up to invite fresh option from among the officers in various cadres. By taking into account of this fact, and considering the fact that Assistant Engineers appointed in Irrigation Department are also being considered for promotion along with Engineers appointed in the Public Works Department, the Engineers appointed in the Irrigation Department are entitled to have the equal benefit in respect of the recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers Division-I in Public Works Department and accordingly, the KPSC was instructed to consider the Irrigation personnel as in-service candidates. 15. The State has preferred a detailed counter before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal making their stand very clear in so far as the concept of creamy layer and the Govt. Orders giving effect to the said creamy layer policy. They contend that a person who falls within the creamy layer is a person reaching advanced level or status. A person who does not belong to either SC or ST or any of the Backward classes notified by virtue of the provisions contained under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is deemed to have reached advance social level or status and therefore is ineligible for reservation as a rural candidate. To determine whether a person who reached an advance social level or status falls within the creamy layer, economic status, namely the income limit and properties held either belonging to him or his family is also to be taken into account. To determine whether a person who reached an advance social level or status falls within the creamy layer, economic status, namely the income limit and properties held either belonging to him or his family is also to be taken into account. As such, considering this aspect and by referring to these facts and also following a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to the concept of creamy layer, the Govt. Order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) came to be issued. It is just and proper and is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 16. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that the very object/concept of reservation is to revise the status of a group of persons to reach the level of persons who are at the higher level. That being the position, it is to be noted that admittedly, the persons who belong to other Backward Classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution are deemed to have reached advanced social level or status than that of the persons who do not belong to the categories specified under Article 16(4). Thus, the impugned Government Order while insisting the concept of creamy layer for persons belonging to other backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution prescribes the creamy layer to the candidates belonging to general merit. The claim of the candidates could be extended provided it is their case that the persons belonging to Backward Classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution and general merit candidates are equal in status. Such plea cannot be entertained for the simple reason that under Article 16(4) the power is conferred upon the Govt. to identity Backward Classes. In view of the settled position, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order vide Annexure-5. The above narrated facts, position of law unmistakably demonstrate that the applicants have not made out any case which warrants interference in the impugned order and hence, they are liable to be dismissed in law. 17. The respondent No.2, 4, 6, and 9 have filed separate objections. They contend, by virtue of note 1 in the Govt. order, rule for reservation does not apply to direct recruitment of posts which insists on a prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post as a qualification or eligibility. 17. The respondent No.2, 4, 6, and 9 have filed separate objections. They contend, by virtue of note 1 in the Govt. order, rule for reservation does not apply to direct recruitment of posts which insists on a prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post as a qualification or eligibility. In the instant case, pursuant to notification dt. 17-4-07 and 8-8-07, the respondents have applied for appointment as in service candidates, i.e. by virtue of having experience in the post of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, these respondents fall under the exempted category and the Rule contained is inapplicable. Secondly, it was contended, the State Govt. has accepted the order of the KAT in terms of the direction dated 02-03-04 issued by the Principal Secretary, PWD. PWD has directed KPSC to implement the order of the KAT dated 19-12-08. A copy of the said direction is produced as Annexure 2. KPSC is only a recruiting body which is required to make recruitment in accordance with Rules and Regulations laid down by the Legislation and the Govt. It lacks any locus whatsoever to maintain the above writ petition when the decision of the KAT has been accepted by the State Government. On that ground they want the writ petitions to be dismissed. Even in the other batch of writ petitions the respondents have filed counter raising the very same grounds. 18. The challenge in these applications was for applying the concept of creamy layer to candidates belonging to general category on the ground that the same is in violation of Sec.3 of the Act. The respondents claim, as per the Kannada version of the Act, proviso to Sec. 3 provided that the concept of creamy layer is not applicable to General Merit and category I of Backward Classes. Therefore, the Govt. Order dated 13-2-01 would not have prescribed that creamy layer is applicable to General Merit and hence the Govt. order is in violation of Section 3 of the Act. 19. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of 40 applications including the applications of the said respondents 1 to 4. The applications are allowed by holding that the Govt. Order dated 13-02-01 which brings the General Merit (Rural) candidates under creamy layer and prescribes Form 1 is in violation of Section 3 of the said Act. 19. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of 40 applications including the applications of the said respondents 1 to 4. The applications are allowed by holding that the Govt. Order dated 13-02-01 which brings the General Merit (Rural) candidates under creamy layer and prescribes Form 1 is in violation of Section 3 of the said Act. The Tribunal also held that Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules applies and age relaxation is permissible. There is no complete bifurcation of Public Works Department and Irrigation Department and therefore persons working in both the departments are eligible to apply for the posts in pursuance of the notification. Aggrieved by the said common order dated 19-12-08, the petitioner – Commission has preferred this batch of writ petitions. One petition is preferred by the employees of Public Works Engineering Department. 20. The points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are as under: (1) Whether the Karnataka Public Service Commission has locus standi to challenge the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal when the Government has accepted the said judgment and is seeking to implement the same. (2) Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of relaxation of age provided under Rule 6(3b) of the General Recruitment Rules? (3) Whether the creamy layer policy is applicable to in service candidates? (4) Whether the employees who are working in WRDO are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification. POINT NO.1 LOCUS STANDI OF KPSC Whether the KPSC has locus standi to challenge the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal when the Government has accepted its judgment and seek to implement the same? 21. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Karnataka Public Service Commission has no locus standi to prefer these petitions against the order passed by the Tribunal on merits as it cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. If in course of the order, the Tribunal alleged malafides against the KPSC and had passed any strictures to that extent, only the KPSC can be said to be an aggrieved person and they are entitled to challenge the same before this Court. If in course of the order, the Tribunal alleged malafides against the KPSC and had passed any strictures to that extent, only the KPSC can be said to be an aggrieved person and they are entitled to challenge the same before this Court. On the question of interpretation of a provision of law, or a Government Order, when the Tribunal has found fault with the interpretation by the KPSC and has rejected the said interpretation of the rules and law and thereafter, the Government did not challenge the same and on the contrary accepted the same, the KPSC has no locus standi to challenge the order of the Tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied on several judgments of the Apex Court. 22. Per contra, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the KPSC contended that, not only the KPSC has a right to challenge the order of the Tribunal if any adverse remarks are made against the KPSC but also on merits, if the interpretation placed by the KPSC is not accepted by the Tribunal. He further contends that the KPSC is an Authority constituted under the Constitution and it is expected to scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field and if the interpretation placed by the Government or the authorities concerned is contrary to the statutory provisions, they have a right to challenge the said order before this Court and in support of his contention he relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs BALOJI BADHAVATH AND OTHERS [(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 999. 23. Chapter II of Part-XIV of the Constitution deals with the Public Service Commission. Article 315 deals with the establishment of Public Service Commission for the Union as well as the State and Article 320 deals with the functions of the Public Service Commission which reads as under: 320. 23. Chapter II of Part-XIV of the Constitution deals with the Public Service Commission. Article 315 deals with the establishment of Public Service Commission for the Union as well as the State and Article 320 deals with the functions of the Public Service Commission which reads as under: 320. Functions of Public Service Commissions (1) It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively (2) It shall also be the duty of the Union Public Service Commission, if requested by any two or more State so to do, to assist those States in framing and operating schemes of joint recruitment for any services for which candidates possessing special qualifications are required (3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; (c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters; (d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has served under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to the amount of any such award, and it shall be the duty of a Public Service Commission to advice on any matter so referred to them and on any other matter which the President, or, as the case may be, the Governor, of the State, may refer to them; Provided that the President as respects the all India services and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor, as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted (4) Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public Service Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in which any provision referred to in clause (4) of Article 16 may be made or as respects the manner in which effect maybe given to the provisions of Article 335 (5) All regulations made under the proviso to clause (3) by the President or the Governor of a State shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before each House of Parliament or the House or each House of the Legislature of the State, as the case may be, as soon as possible after they are made, and shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as both Houses of Parliament or the House or both Houses of the Legislature of the State may make during the 24. The Apex Court, in the case of State of U.P. vs RAFIQUDDIN [AIR 87 Supp SCC 401], dealing with the functioning of the Public Service Commission has held as under:- “30. The Commission is an independent expert body. It has to act in an independent manner in making the selection on the prescribed norms. It may consult the State Government and the High Court in prescribing the norms for judging the suitability of candidates if no norms are prescribed in the Rules. Once the Commission determines the norms and makes selection on the conclusion of the competitive examination and submits list of the suitable candidates to the Government it should not reopen the selection by lowering down the norms at the instance of the Government. If the practice of revising the result of competitive examination by changing norms is followed there will be confusion and the people will lose faith in the institution of Public Service Commission and the authenticity of selection. ….. We are of the opinion that the Commission should take firm stand in these matters in making the selection in accordance with the norms fixed by law or fixed by it in accordance with law uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government unsupported by the Rules” Again the Apex Court, in the case of INDER PARKASH GUPTA Vs STATE OF J & K [ 2004(6) SCC 786 ] held as under:- “The Public Service Commission is a body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its own Public Service Commission to meet the constitutional requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the Constitution. Appointment to service in a State must be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and in conformity with the autonomy and freedom of executive action. Article 133 of the Constitution imposes duty upon the State to conduct examination for the appointment to the service of the State. The Public Service Commission is also required to be consulted on the matters enumerated under Section 133. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. It may be that for certain purposes, for example, for the purpose of shortlisting, it can lay down its own procedure. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. It may be that for certain purposes, for example, for the purpose of shortlisting, it can lay down its own procedure. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. It cannot take any action which per se would be violative of the statutory rules or makes the same inoperative for all intent and purport. Even for the purpose of shortlisting, the Commission cannot fix any kind of cut-off marks.” Again in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS [ 2003 (11) SCC 559 ], it is held as under:- “11. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its limits too. Independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure of the Government, as submitted on behalf of the appellant Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the provisions of the law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of the State Government. It cannot impose it is own policy decision in a matter beyond its purview. Again, it is stated as under: It is to be noted that under clause (3) of Article 320, the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, has to be consulted by the Government relating to methods of recruitment in civil services and for civil posts, promotions and transfers as well as about suitability of candidates etc., The consultation may also be in regard to disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government. We then find that clause (4) particularly provides that nothing in clause (3) shall require consultation of the Commission in respect to the manner in which any provisions referred to in Article 16(4) may be made or the manner in which the effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335. Article 16(4) deals with reservations and Article 335 pertains to consideration of reservation consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of the administration. Article 16(4) deals with reservations and Article 335 pertains to consideration of reservation consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of the administration. As indicated earlier, clause (4) of Article 320 clearly provides that consultation of the Commission would not be necessary in the matters relating to Articles 16(4) and 335. Therefore, it would be a matter of policy to be decided by the State Government as to what measures, if necessary, may be provided regarding reservations vis-à-vis maintenance of efficiency in services. Where no special qualification or any prescribed standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility criteria is provided by the Rules or the State, it would not be for the Commission to impose any extra qualification/standard separately for maintaining minimum efficiency which, it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation with the Commission, in such matters, is envisaged in view of clause (4) of Article 320 of the Constitution.” 25. Therefore, the Public Service Commission is a body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes its own Public Service Commission to meet the constitutional requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the Constitution. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its limits too. The Commission is an independent expert body. It has to act in an independent manner in making the selection on the prescribed norms. Independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is not supposed to function under any pressure of the Government. Appointment to service in a State must be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and in conformity with the autonomy and freedom of executive action. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. The Commission should take firm stand in making the selection in accordance with the norms fixed by law or fixed by it in accordance with law uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government and unsupported by the Rules. 26. The Karnataka State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959 for the performance of its functions and to provide for the exercise of certain additional functions by the Commission. 26. The Karnataka State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959 for the performance of its functions and to provide for the exercise of certain additional functions by the Commission. The said enactment was passed for the performance of the functions of the Commission under the Constitution or under any law for the time being in force. Chapter III deals with additional functions of the Commission. One such additional function as contained in Section 16 is the conduct of service examinations. Such examinations which persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State are required to pass under the conditions of recruitment of service are applicable to them and which may be notified by Government under this Section, and such other examinations as may be notified by Government from time to time shall, with effect from such date as the Government may appoint, be conducted by the Commission in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. Similarly, the Commission is also empowered under Section 17 as the authority competent to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of local authorities and it shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct such examinations. Section 18 of the said Act empowers the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act in consultation with the Commission by notification in the official gazette. Accordingly, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 15 and 18 of the Act after consultation with the Karnataka Public Service Commission has made the Rules called ‘The Karnataka Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1973’. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that, when the Commission is consulted in regard to the making of rules of recruitment relating to any service the Commission shall advice on all matters relating to recruitment including the methods of recruitment, minimum qualifications, syllabus for written examination if any, principles to be followed in recruitment and such other matters. Rule 4 deals with direct recruitment by examination whereas Rules 5 deals with recruitment by selection. In both the cases the Commission shall scrutinize the applications received and issue admission certificate to such of those whose applications are in order and who fulfill the required conditions. Rule 4 deals with direct recruitment by examination whereas Rules 5 deals with recruitment by selection. In both the cases the Commission shall scrutinize the applications received and issue admission certificate to such of those whose applications are in order and who fulfill the required conditions. In case of direct recruitment by selection, it shall scrutinize the applications received and made selections in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973. When the Commission is consulted in regard to the suitability of any candidate or candidates for promotion, Rule 6 empowers the Commission for recruitment by promotion. The said promotion may be by selection or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Thus, a free hand is given to the Commission and it is the Government which has to consult the Commission and not the vice versa. 27. From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that, when once the assistance of the Commission is sought for in the matter of recruitment either by direct recruitment by examination or direct recruitment by selection or recruitment by promotion, the authority has to independently act in accordance with the Rules and make the selection. It is not obliged to act as per the dictate of the executive in these matters. That is the reason why an independent authority like the Commission was provided under the Indian Constitution. State Legislatures have passed enactments giving effect to the aforesaid constitutional provisions. It is the Government, which has to consult the Commission. The Commission is under no statutory obligation to consult the Government. The recruitment to be made by the Commission should be in consonance with the constitutional provisions and the Acts and Rules governing the same. In fact Rule 11 categorically states appointments, promotions and transfers, made by any Appointing Authority in contravention of the relevant rules of recruitment and the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1958 shall be reported to the Government by the Commission. The Government shall furnish to the Commission any information which the Commission considers it necessary for consideration of any matter referred to it for consultation unless it is certified by the Chief Secretary to Government that same cannot be furnished without undue labour or should be withheld in the public interest. 28. The Government shall furnish to the Commission any information which the Commission considers it necessary for consideration of any matter referred to it for consultation unless it is certified by the Chief Secretary to Government that same cannot be furnished without undue labour or should be withheld in the public interest. 28. It is in the background of the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the locus standi of the Commission to challenge the orders passed by the judicial authorities finding fault with the selections made by it, is to be considered. 29. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs P CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY AND OTHERS ( 2006 (8) SCC 330 ) dealing with a case where the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission which had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh which had upheld the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal held as under:- “20. Rule 6 of the Public Service Commission Rules, whereupon Mr. Prabhakar placed reliance is not of much significance. It operates in a different field. It will have no application in a case of this nature. The law cannot be permitted to act unfairly. It cannot be arbitrary. The country is governed by a rule of law and not by men. Thus, although a mistake had been committed by the State, the same cannot be directed to be perpetrated only because the Commission will have to undertake the selection process again and particularly, in view of the fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh did not question the order passed by the Tribunal”. 30. Relying on this judgment it was contended firstly that, the Public Service Commission had no right to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court. Secondly it was contended that, when the State Government has accepted the order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the Commission has no locus standi to challenge the same before the Apex Court. Secondly it was contended that, when the State Government has accepted the order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the Commission has no locus standi to challenge the same before the Apex Court. Though the question of locus standi was not decided expressly in the aforesaid judgment, in the facts of that particular case, the Apex Court held the grievance of the Commission that it has to undertake the selection process again if the order passed by the High Court as well as the Tribunal stands was not a good reason for interfering with the said order. In that context it was held that the person who committed the mistake was the Government and the Government has accepted the judgment, the appeal preferred by the Commission to the Supreme Court lacks merit. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the said judgment lays down the proposition of law that the Commission has no locus standi to challenge an order passed by a judicial Tribunal. In fact, the learned Judge who passed the said judgment in the Apex Court, had an occasion to consider the said question specifically in a subsequent judgment where the said portion of the earlier judgment was brought to his notice. After noticing the same, the learned Judge has specifically clarified the legal position in the case of ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs BALOJI BADHAVATH AND OTHERS [(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 999. Dealing with the question of locus standi of the Public Service Commission to challenge the orders it was held as under:- “46. So far as the question of locus standi of the appellant to file this special leave petition is concerned, we are of the opinion that it has the locus standi. The High Court not only has set aside GOMs dated 31-12-1997 but it has also set aside Notification dated 27-12-2007. If the High Court’s judgment is to be implemented, a fresh selection procedure has to be undertaken by the appellant. Furthermore, it terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, in the event, finds merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents may set aside the entire judgment although another respondent had not appealed thereagainst. The Commission had undertaken the task of holding preliminary examination. Furthermore, it terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, in the event, finds merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents may set aside the entire judgment although another respondent had not appealed thereagainst. The Commission had undertaken the task of holding preliminary examination. It had followed the procedure laid down in its notification issued in this behalf and the GOMs issued by the State. It, therefore, could maintain a writ petition”. 31. While referring to the aforesaid judgment in P CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY’s case, the Apex Court held as under:- “48. … In Chandra Mouleswara Reddy case, the State had accepted the judgment of the High Court. A mistake on the part of the State to issue the impugned direction was in question therein. It was in that context the aforementioned observations had been made. Therein 19 posts were to be filled up whereas a direction was issued to fill up only ten posts. The Tribunal directed the State to fill up all 19 Posts. The State of Andhra Pradesh did not question the order of the Tribunal. Even the commission was not required to carry out any fresh exercise to comply with the direction of the Tribunal. As the order of the Tribunal was not found to be unjustified, the High Court refused to interfere therewith. The observations were made only in the aforementioned context”. 32. Therefore, it is clear in P CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY’s case, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Commission was not required to carry out any fresh exercise to comply with the direction of the Tribunal. However, in BALOJI BADHAVATH’s case, if the order of the High Court is to be implemented, the Commission had to undertake the task of preliminary examination which had been set aside by the High Court. It is in that context it was held that, if the recruitment process conducted by the Commission, if it is found fault with and set aside the same and if the Commission because of that order is compelled to redo the whole thing, then the Commission is an aggrieved person. 33. The Commission is a constitutional authority created under the Constitution. 33. The Commission is a constitutional authority created under the Constitution. It has to function in terms of the constitutional provisions giving effect to the object with which it is constituted under the Constitution and the State Legislature defines its functions, passes a law and specific functions are assigned to it under the statute, the Commission has to work strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. When in the course of discharging its functions it is of the opinion that these actions are in accordance with the statutory provisions and if it feels the recruitment done by them is unnecessarily found fault with by a judicial body whose decision is contrary to the statutory provisions certainly they have a right to challenge the said order passed by the judicial authority. The reason for setting at naught the recruitment process is not the criteria. It is the ultimate result. If any action of the Commission is found fault with and the Commission has to redo the thing over again and if the Commission feels their action is strictly in accordance with law, they have a right to challenge the judgment of a judicial body which has found fault with their action. It is immaterial whether the action of the Commission is found fault with by making any allegations against the Commission or attributing mala fides or purely on procedural irregularity or being contrary to law. The contention that the Commission has nothing to do with the appointment in any particular department after the selection process is over and if the selection is set aside, they cannot be held to be aggrieved persons, cannot be accepted. Though the Commission has no personal interest in any of these recruitment, as a constitutional authority when it has conducted the selection in accordance with the statutory provisions and if such selection is found fault which as improper or illegal, the Commission being an independent authority, if it wants to justify its actions and show that their actions are strictly in accordance with law, that can be done only by challenging that order in the superior Court. Therefore, their right to challenge the order finding fault with the selection process cannot be taken away. Therefore, their right to challenge the order finding fault with the selection process cannot be taken away. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Commission has the locus standi to challenge the order of a judicial authority, or a quasi judicial authority if their selections are set at naught by them not only on the ground of mala fides but even being contrary to law. It is open to them to show to the superior Courts that the recruitment or selection process which they have done is strictly in accordance with law and it has been unnecessarily interfered by a judicial or quasi judicial authority. POINT NO.2