PETITIONER:
MADHUKAR SINHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1991
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR Supl. (1) 112 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 730
JT 1992 (1) 8 1991 SCALE (2)531
ACT:
Service Law: Civil Services Examination, 1990--Seniority
of successful candidates--Directions by the Court.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant filed an application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, for a declaration that
the second proviso to rule 4 of Civil Services Examination
Rules was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu-
tion of India. By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the
appellant to appear at the Civil Services (Main) Examina-
tion, 1990, subject to the result of the final orders in the
original application. The said application was transferred
to this Court.
In a bunch of similar cases, the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi upheld the validity of Rule 4 of Civil
Services Examination Rules. In appeal to this Court (Civil
Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90)** by an interim order dated
7.12.1990, the appellants therein were allowed to appear in
Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990; and while finally
disposing of the appeals, the judgment of CAT, Delhi was
affirmed.
Dismissing the case of the appellant in view of the
judgment in C.As Nos. 5439-52/90,** this Court,
HELD: The appellant was also entitled to the same
benefits as granted to the appellants in Civil Appeals No.
5439-52/90, namely:
(i) All those candidates who appeared for the Civil
Services (Main) Examination, 1990, pursuant to this Court's
order dated 7.12.90 and qualified themselves for the inter-
view, shall be permitted to appear for the interview test
and that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily
qualify themselves by getting through the written examina-
tions as well as the interview shall be given proper alloca-
tion and appointment on the basis of their rank in the merit
list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second
proviso to rule 4 and this Court's judgment
113
upholding the validity of the said proviso since the re-
spondents have no/ questioned and challenged the directions
given by C.A.T. Principal Bench, Delhi in its judgment dated
20.8.1990.
(ii) The un-challenged directions given by the C.A.T.
in its judgment as well as directions given by this Court
in its order dated 7.12.90 were not controlled by any rider
in the sense that the said directions were subject to the
result of the cases and hence those directions would be
confined only to those candidates who appeared for C.S.E.
1990 and no further. The seniority of those successful
candidates in C.S.E. 1990 would depend on the service to
which they have qualified. The seniority of the left out
candidates would be maintained in ease they have joined the
service to which they have been allocated on the result of
previous C.S.E. and such candidates will not be subjected to
suffer loss of seniority as held by the C.A.T. Delhi in its
judgment. [pp 114 H, 115A-D]
**Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India, [1991]
Supp. 1 SCR 46
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case No. 2 of
1991.
(Under Article 139-A(1) of the Constitution of India)
Salman Khurshid, Madhan Panikkar, Mrs. Vimla Sinha and
Gopal Singh for the Appellant.
Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley, Additional Solicitor
Generals, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and C.V.S. Rao for the Respond-
ents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The above case has been regis-
tered in pursuance of our order dated 23.11.90 in Transfer
Petition (Civil) No.546/90 transferring O.A.No.191 of 1990
under Article 139 (A) of the Constitution of India from the
file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench,
Patna. the appellant’s prayer is to dispose of the above
case along with Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90 (arising out of
SLP (Civil) Nos. 13525-38 of 1990). The relief sought for by
the appellant before the CAT, Patna Bench was similar to the
one before the CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi that being to
declare the second proviso to Rule 4 of C.S.E. as violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On
29.8.90 the
114
Patna Bench in M.P. No. 36/90 granted an interim relief
which reads thus:
“Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant may be allowed to appear at the
Civil Services Main Examination, 1990, subject
to result of the final orders in the original
application. The respondents are directed
accordingly. Copy be given to the parties
today.”
Mr. Salman Khurshid appearing for the appellant submit-
ted that the interim direction given by the Patna Bench if
covered by the directions given in paras 5(ii) and 6 of the
order of CAT, Delhi he has no further submission to be made,
and the implementation of those directions will satisfy his
relief.
We in our order dated 7.12.1990 have clarified certain
directions given by the CAT, Delhi with reference to the
various interim orders passed by it in a number of OAs and
finally gave the following direction:
“Hence we permit all those candidates falling
under Para Nos. 5 (ii), 6 and 7 to sit for the
main examination subject to the condition that
each candidate satisfies the Secretary, Union
public Service Commission that he/she falls
within these categories and that the concerned
candidates have passed the preliminary exami-
nation of 1990 and have also applied for the
main examination within the due date. This
permission is only for the ensuing examina-
tion., As we are now permitting those who have
passed the preliminary examination of 1990 and
have applied for the main examination on the
basis of the unquestioned and unchallenged
directions given under paras 5(ii), 6 and 7 of
the judgment of the CAT, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, the same benefit is extended to the
other appellants also who satisfy those condi-
tions as mentioned under paras 5 (ii), 6 and
7.”
The above direction virtually confirms the direction
given by the Patna Bench in M.P. No.36/90 allowing the
appellant therein to sit for C.S.E. (Main) of 1990. However,
we have not subjected our direction with any rider in the
sense that that direction will be subjected to the result of
the appeals. In fact, we have in the judgment rendered
today in Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90 and batches given a
direction to the respondents inclusive of the Union Public
Service Commission that “all those candidates who have
appeared for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990,
pursuant to our permission given in the order dated 7.12.90
and who have
115
come out successfully in the said examination and thereby
have qualified themselves for the interview, shall be per-
mitted to appear for the interview test and that if those
candidates completely and satisfactorily qualify themselves
by getting through the written examinations as well as the
interview shah be given proper allocation and appointment on
the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding
the restriction imposed by the second proviso and our
present judgment upholding the validity of the said proviso
since the respondents have not questioned and challenged the
directions given by CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi in para-
graphs 5(ii), 6 and 7 of its judgment dated 20.8.1990. We
would like to make it clear that the unchallenged directions
given by the CAT in its judgment as well as directions given
by us in our order dated 7.12.90 are not.controlled by any
rider in the sense that the said directions were subject to
the result of the cases and hence those directions would be
confined only to those candidates who appeared for CSE, 1990
and no further. The seniority of those successful candidates
in CSE, 1990 would depend on the service to which they have
qualified. The seniority of the left-out candidates would be
maintained in case they have joined the service to which
they have been allocated on the result of previous CSE and
such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of
seniority as held by the CAT, Delhi in its judgment”.
Therefore, we hold that this appellant is also entitled
for the same above benefit. In other respects, this trans-
ferred case is dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the
main judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90 and batches.
No order as to costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
116