O.A. No. 511 of 1995. Case: Rameshwar Prasad Meena Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 511 of 1995 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.P. Mathur, Adv. Brief Holder for R.N. Mathur, Adv. and For Respondents: S.S. Hasan and V.S. Gurjar, Advs. |
| Judges | B.S. Raikote, J. (Vice Chairman) and N.P. Nawani, Member (A) |
| Issue | Civil Service Examination Rules, 1992 - Rule 4; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 |
| Judgement Date | May 26, 2000 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
B.S. Raikote, Vice Chairman
-
This application is filed for the following reliefs:
(i) That the order dated 1.8.1995 (Annexure A/1) and the order dated 28.8.95 (Annexure A/1) may kindly be set aside and quashed;
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to declare final result of the applicant for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1994;
(iii) That the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to appropriate service, which the applicant is entitled to get in pursuance of Civil Services Examination, 1994; and
(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court feel just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case even the same has been not specifically prayed for but which is necessary to secure ends of justice may kindly also be issued in favour of the applicant."
-
It is contended by the applicant that he appeared in Civil Service Examination, 1992, and after being qualified in the preliminary examination as well as in the main examination, he was recommended in the Grade 'A' Service. Accordingly, he was issued with an endorsement vide Annexure A/3 stating that on his success in the Civil Service Examination, 1992, he was tentatively alloted to Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS, for short). It is stated in Annexure A/3 that his tentative allocation may undergo changes and he may get a service of higher preference or lower preference depending upon the facts and circumstances obtaining in respect of candidates above him and his final allocation of a service would be strictly on the basis of his rank in the merit list and subject to his physical fitness. It is also stated in Annexure A/3 that after the final service allocation is made, a formal offer of appointment will be sent to him by the Cadre Controlling Authority of the Service to which he is finally alloted. By Annexure A/3, he was requested, if he was willing to be considered for appointment to report the Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, on 5.9.93 without fail for the foundational course commencing on 6.9.93, the applicant was asked to sent a telegram immediately regarding his intention to join the said training. It appears that the applicant sent a telegram, a copy of which has not been placed before us. It is stated that on the basis of this telegram Annexure A/4 was issued to him giving permission to abstain from joining training under Rule 4 of the C.S.E. Rules, 1992 (The Rules, for short), to enable him to appear at the Civil Service Examination (C.S.E., for short), 1993. Thereafter, the applicant was issued with a letter dated 23.2.94 vide Annexure A/5 stating that though he was permitted to appear at C.S.E., 1993, he was alloted to ICAS on the basis of C.S.E., 1992, and aformal appointment order would be issued to him. The letter further stated that if he was not interested in the service to which he was given allocation, he can do so by informing the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority in writing within ten days of the receipt of that letter. It is the case of the applicant that having regard to the fact that his allocation of Service on the basis of C.S.E., 1992, was only tentative and he had not received any formal offer of appointment, hedecided to take up C.S.E., 1994 since he was not successful in C.S.E. 1993. The last date of receiving the application for C.S.E., 1994 was 14.2.1994 and in those circumstances, he filed an application on 26.1.1994 for preliminary examination. He was permitted to take preliminary examination and his results were declared. Thereafter, he was also permitted to appear in the main examination. He has stated that alongwith the applications for both preliminary examination and main examination, he had annexed separate applications intimating that he had passed ICAS in C.S.E., 1992, and allotted a service which he did not accept. In due course, he was declared successful in the main examination and he was also called for interview. During interview, he was given a letter dated 31.5.95 (Annexure A/ 10) stating that he was permitted to appear in the interview subject to his production of documents in terms of Rule 4(b) of the Rules. The applicant submitted that he had sent a letter informing about his refusal of ICAS vide Annexure A/7 dated 8.6.1994 and on that basis, the order dated 30.6.1994 (Annexure A/2) passed by the President, treating the offer of appointment issued to him to ICAS as cancelled with effect from 8.6.1994. The applicant submits that in view of these circumstances, he had applied for C.S.E., 1994, and in terms of the results of 1994 main examination, the respondents should have given him an appropriate appointment order. Therefore, there should be a direction in his favour in that behalf. The applicant also stated that even otherwise, the said Rule 4(b) of the Rules does not apply to his case because final allocation of service to ICAS was not given to him at any point in time before the last date of receiving the application for Preliminary Examination, 1994. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the Rule 4(b) of the Rules itself is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and accordingly, the same is liable to be struck down.
-
By filing reply, the respondent No. 1, Union of India, stated that they have no objection if the reliefs as prayed for by the applicant in 8(i), 8(ii) and 8(iii) are allowed.
-
The respondent No. 2, Union Public Service Commission, by filing separate reply, has denied the allegations made by the applicant. According to respondent No. 2, the applicant was issued with Annexure A/3 allocating tentative allotment of Service (ICAS) and after the final allocation of service, a formal offer of appointment would be sent to him by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority, and the applicant should send a telegram to the Academy immediately, In absence...
To continue reading
Request your trial