JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. The aforementioned special appeals have been preferred against the Judgment and order dated November 23, 1995 of a learned single Judge by which Writ Petition Nos. 14662 of 1995 and 16210 of 1995 were allowed. The writ petitioners had challenged the action of the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as P.S.C.) in applying the provisions of U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994) while making selection for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Rural Engineering Service of the State. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions, quashed the result declared on May 12, 1995 and directed the P.S.C. to republish the result after applying the reservation policy as it stood prior to the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994.
2. In exercise of power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor of U. P. has made U. P. Gramin Abhiyantric Vibhag Adhinasth Abhiyantrlc Seva Niyamawali, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Seva Niyamawali. 1984) wherein the procedure for recruitment and condition of service of Junior Engineers in the Rural Engineering Service is provided. Rule 5 provides the recruitment to service will be made through direct recruitment. Rule 15 provides the P.S.C. will call the candidates for interview and shall prepare a list in the order of merit on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the interview. If two candidates secure equal marks, their inter se merit will be determined on the basis of their general suitability.
3. An advertisement was issued in December, 1992 inviting applications for making recruitment to about 500 posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Rural Engineering Service of the State. A written test was held on May 30, 1993 and the result of the same was declared on April 26, 1994. Thereafter interviews of the candidates, who were declared successful in the written test, were held between May 30 to July 25, 1994. The result was published by the P.S.C. on May 12, 1995 and thereafter between June 9 to October 18. 1995 appointment letters were issued to 454 candidates. While declaring the result, the P.S.C. applied the provisions of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 by which reservation for certain categories of persons was enhanced. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, which makes provisions for reservation, reads as follows :
Section 3 (1).--"In public services and posts, there shall be reservation at the stage of direct recruitment, the following percentages of vacancies to which recruitments are to be made in accordance with the roster referred to in sub-section (5) in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes of citizens :
(a) in the case of Scheduled Castes--Twenty-one per cent ;
(b) in the case of Scheduled Tribes--Two per cent :
(c) in the case of other Backward Classes of citizens--Twenty-seven per cent Provided that the reservation under clause (c) shall not apply to the category of other Backward Classes of citizens specified in Schedule II."
4. The question which requires consideration is whether the P.S.C. was Justified in preparing the list of selected candidates after applying the reservation policy contained in the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on December 11. 1993. Subsection (1) of Section 15 which has a bearing on the controversy in hand is reproduced below:
Section 15 (1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to cases in which selection process has been initiated before the commencement of this Act and such cases shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law and Government orders as they stood before such commencement.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section the selection process shall be deemed to have been initiated where, under the relevant service rules, recruitment is to be made on the basis of :
(i) written test or interview only, the written test or the interview, as the case may be, has started, or
(ii) both written test and interview, the written test has started."
A plain reading of Section 15(1) will show that the provisions of the Act shall not apply where the selection process has been Initiated before the commencement of the Act, namely, before December 11, 1993. The Explanation to this subsection contains a deeming clause which restricts the meaning of the word 'selection process'. It provides that if under the relevant service rules, the recruitment is to be made on the basis of both written test and interview, selection process shall be deemed to have been initiated when the written test had started. However, if the recruitment is to be made only on the basis of a written test or an interview, the selection process shall be deemed to have been initiated when the written test or the interview has started. It is a settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak, AIR 1953 SC 244 and American Home Product Corporation v. Mac-Laboratories AIR 1986 SC 137. In view of the Explanation appended to sub-section (1), the word 'selection process1 cannot have a fixed or uniform meaning and it will vary from case to case depending upon the process or recruitment, namely, whether on the basis of written test or interview or both.
5. Sri Ashok Khare. learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has submitted that in the present case a written test was held on May 30. 1993 which was prior to the commencement of the Act and, therefore, the P.S.C. was not justified in applying the reservation policy as contained in the Act. Sri V. M. Sahai. learned counsel for the P.S.C. and Sri Shailendra learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal No. 594 of 1997 have submitted that in fact no written test was held and the merit list of the selected candidates was prepared only on the basis of interview which was held subsequent to the commencement of the Act and. therefore, the reservation policy as contained in the Act was rightly applied.
6. The Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 15 uses the expression 'relevant service rules'. The relevant service rules for the case in hand are U. P. Seva Niyamawali, 1984 and Rule 15 thereof provides that the P.S.C. shall call the candidates for interview and shall prepare a merit list on the basis of the marks secured by them in the interview. Rule 15 does not provide for holding a written test and, therefore, under the 'relevant service rules' recruitment is to be made only on the basis of an interview. The rules do not contemplate of a written test and the selection has to be made solely on the basis of the marks secured by a candidate in the interview. The Explanation restricts the meaning of the word 'selection process' and consequently 'relevant service rules' alone can be taken into consideration and since thereunder, the recruitment is to be made only on" the basts of an interview, the written test conducted by the P.S.C. can have no bearing on the question of applicability of the Act.
7. The written test conducted by the P.S.C. on May 13, 1993 was not held under the provisions of U. P. Seva Niyamawali, 1984. The said test was held in accordance with U. P. Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Examination Rules, 1986. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of these rules provides that they shall apply to all the recruitments made directly by selection through Commission either on the basis of written examination or interview or both. Rule 2 (v). (v) and (vi) and Rule 3 of 1986 Rules read as under :
Rule 2 (v) 'Service Rules' means the rules and Government Orders governing the service and include the rules prescribing method of recruitment for post.
(vi) 'Preliminary Examination' means screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates for admission to the main examination or interview.
(vii) 'Direct Recruitment' means recruitment directly made through the Commission either by competitive examination or by selection other than by Competitive Examination as may be prescribed in Service Rules and Government orders.
* * * * Rule 3. Holding of Preliminary Examination.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in relevant service rules or Government orders regarding recruitment, the Commission may. with the prior approval of Government hold preliminary examination for selection of suitable candidates for admission to main examination or interview, as the case may be.
(2) Where a preliminary examination is held only such candidates as qualify in the preliminary examination will be entitled for admission to Main Examination, or Interview, as the case may be.
(3) The marks obtained in the preliminary examination will not be counted for determining the final orders of merit.
(4) The preliminary examination will consist of two papers of equal marks of two hours duration in cases where it is to be followed by main examination. Out of the two papers one will be of general knowledge/general studies while the other will be of one of the subjects which may be offered by the candidates, out of the optional subjects allowed for the main examination of that service. In case there be no optional subjects allowed for the main examination, the second subject to be offered may be prescribed by the Commission in its discretion from amongst the compulsory subjects allowed for the examination.
(ii) in cases where selection by interview alone is prescribed the preliminary examination will be of one paper of two hours duration in such subjects as may be prescribed by the Commission in tts discretion covering mainly questions on general knowledge/general studies and subject relevant to the nature of Job of the post.
(5) ..... (omitted) (6) ..... (omitted)"
These rules confer power upon the P.S.C. to hold a preliminary examination for selection of suitable candidates for admission to main examination or interview as the case may be. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 shows that the marks obtained in the preliminary examination will not be counted for determining the final order of merit. Sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 specifically deals with the situation where selection is to be made on the basis of an interview alone and in such a case also, the P.S.C. is authorised to hold a written examination. It is common knowledge that on account of acute unemployment problem in the country, the number of aspirants for even a small number of posts is very high. It is not physically possible for any selecting body to interview all the candidates, as it is a time-taking process. If the P.S.C. had decided to hold interview of all the candidates, who had applied for the post of Junior Engineers, the whole exercise would have been reduced to a farce on account of time factor and other constraints. It. therefore, held a written test in accordance with 1986 Rules which in reality is a screening test in order to determine a limited number of suitable candidates who may be called for interview. Therefore, what was held on May 30. 1993 was not a written test for the purpose of making recruitment under the 'relevant service rule', reference of which is made in Explanation to Section 15 of the Act but was merely a screening test in order to Judge the suitability of the candidate for being called for Interview. Therefore, the said screening test cannot be the decisive factor for judging the applicability of the Act.
8. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that Article 309 of the Constitution confers power to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State and the 1986 Rule, having been made by the Governor of U. P. In exercise of power conferred by the said Article, has to be construed as a rule regulating recruitment and had to be read along with U. P. Seva Nlyamawali, 1984. The expression used in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act is "under the relevant service rules recruitment is to be made on the basis or. Therefore, for the purpose of Section 15, the service rules alone, to the exclusion of all other, can be taken into consideration. If there is any other rule which has a bearing on the process of recruitment, the same can have no relevance and has to be ignored.
9. The view which we are taking is in consonance with the view expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in Awadhesh Rai and others v. State, Writ Petition No. 41243 of 1994. decided on December 23 1994 and Narendra Pratap Shahi v. State. Writ Petition No. 4705 of 1995. decided on April 13, 1995. Sri Ashok Khare has submitted that in the aforesaid cases the decision of the Apex Court in M. P. Public Service Commission v. Naunit Kumar Potdar, AIR 1995 SC 77, wherein it was held that in substance and realities the process of short-listing is part of process of selection, was not noticed and, therefore, they do not lay down the correct law. There cannot be any doubt that any process, by which same candidates are eliminated at any stage, is a part of selection process. However, the meaning of the word 'selection process' as used in Section 15 of the Act has been restricted on account of the Explanation appended thereto. Therefore, the decision in M. P. Public Service Commission (supra) can have no application in the present case.
10. The learned single Judge has held that the word 'screening test' or 'preliminary examination' has no special significance and only where two written examinations are conducted, the first one will be deemed to be a preliminary examination within the meaning of 1986 Rules and where only one examination is conducted, the same will be a written test within the meaning of Explanation to Section 15 of the Act. It was thus held that the written test having been held on May 30, 1993, i.e., prior to the commencement of the Act, the Act could not apply to the case in hand. For the reasons indicated earlier, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge is not correct and cannot be sustained.
11. The P.S.C. prepared a fresh list in accordance with the direction of the learned single Judge in which 53 candidates, who were declared successful in the result published on May 12, 1995, were excluded. The State Government terminated their services on November 15. 1997. Special Appeal No. 594 of 1997 has been filed by 32 such candidates and their contention is that as they were not impleaded as parties to the writ petitions and their rights have been affected by the Impugned Judgment and order, the same is liable to be set aside. Special Appeal No. 214 of 1997 has been filed by five such candidates who were Impleaded as parties. It is urged on their behalf that notice of the writ petition was not served upon them and as such, they got no knowledge of the same and could not contest the petition. Since the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge is being set aside on merit, it is not necessary to deal with these submissions.
12. In the result, all the Special Appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated November 23. 1995 of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.