N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda appellant No. 1 is a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) having secured first class with distinction getting 69.96% marks from Karnataka University. Shri Rajendra appellant No. 2 is a Bachelor of Engineering (Mech.) from Karnataka University and secured 66.40 marks in the qualifying examination. The Govt. of Karnataka by notification dated 4th April, 1985 invited applications for recruitment of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and (Mech.) for the Public Works Deptt. The selections were to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and marks secured in the interview, in accordance with the K.S.C.S. (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to these Rules the marks for qualifying examination were kept at 100 and 50 for interview. Thus the marks allotted for interview amounted to 33.3% of the total marks. Applications were invited for 300 posts of Civil Engineers and 100 Mechanical Engineers initially and subsequently added additional posts of 150 Civil Engineers and 10 Mechanical Engineers, thus in all 450 Civil Engineers and 110 Mechanical Engineers. Both the appellants applied for the posts of their choices in the Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka. Appellant No. 1 secured 29.50 marks out of 50 marks in the interview and 69.96 marks in the qualifying examination thus in all 99.46 marks out of 150. The 2nd appellant obtained 24.83 marks in the interview and 66.40 marks in the qualifying examination thus in all 91.23 marks out of 150. Both the appellants were not selected in merit as the last candidate selected for the above posts secured higher marks than the appellants. The appellants filed a petition before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal challenging the Rules on the ground that the percentage of marks for viva voce as 33.3 were excessive and in violation of the decisions of the Court. The Tribunal by its order dated 24th May, 1990 dismissed the petitions and the appellants aggrieved against the aforesaid decision have approached his Court by grant of special leave. It is not necessary to examine the matter in detail inasmuch as 50 marks for interview out of 150 are clearly in violation of the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) Supp (1) SCR 657: 1986 Lab IC 1417 and Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab, (1990) 4 JT (SC) 704. On a direction given by this Court on 4th September, 1991 the record of the Selection Committee was produced before this Court at the time of hearing. From a persual of the marks awarded to the selected candidates it is clear that a large number of candidates have been selected though they had secured much lesser marks than the appellants in the qualifying examination but had secured very high marks in the viva voca out of 50 marks kept for this purpose. Thus it is an admitted position than if the marks for interview were kept even at 15% of the total marks and merit list is prepared accordingly then both the appellants were bound to be selected and a large number of selected candidates would have gone much lower in the merit list than the appellants. In view of the fact that the result of the impunged selections was declared in 1987 and the selected candidates have already joined the posts, we do not consider it just and proper to quash the selections on the above ground. Further the selections were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice is being consistently followed for the last 17 years and there is no allegation of any mala fides in the matter of the impugned selections. However, the Rules are clearly in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above referred cases and in case the marks for viva voce would have been kept say at 15% of the total marks, the appellants before us were bound to be selected on the basis of marks secured by them in interview, calculated on the basis of converting the same to 15% of the total marks.

3. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the respondents to give appointment to the appellant Ashok alias Somanna Gowda on the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) and appellant Rajendra on the post of Asstt. Engineer (Mech.) in Public Works Department within a period of two months of the communication of this order in case the appellants are found suitable in all other respects according on the Rules. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka pointed out that there are many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than the appellants in case the above criteria is applied for selection. In view of the fact that appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the State Government has already framed new rules, and as such we do not find it necessary to quash the Rules under which the present selections were made as they are no longer in existence. No order as to costs.

4. Appeal allowed.