Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11779 of 2011) and Interlocutory Application No. 1. Case: Sec., U.P.S.C. and Anr. Vs S. Krishna Chaitanya. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 5 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 6349 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11779 of 2011) and Interlocutory Application No. 1
CounselFor Appellant: Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Anuj Bhandari and Binu Tamta, Advs. And For Respondents: L. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv., G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan and Bharat J. Joshi, Advs.
JudgesMukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
CitationAIR 2011 SC 3101, 2011 (5) AWC 4360 SC, 2011 (5) LW 315, 2011 (7) MLJ 836 (SC), JT 2011 (8) SC 596, 2011 (8) SCALE 415
Judgement DateAugust 05, 2011
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Anil R. Dave, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 7.2.2001 passed in W.P. No. 33367 of 2010 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, confirming the Order dated 1st September, 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, this appeal has been filed by the Appellants - the Secretary and the Joint Secretary of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

  3. According to the case of the Respondent, being desirous of taking Civil Services Examination, 2010, he had filled up his application form and had sent the same to UPSC through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. The Respondent had handed over his application form to the above named courier on 28th January, 2010, and the courier had intimated to the Respondent that the application form was delivered to UPSC on 29th January, 2010. Thus, according to the Respondent, his application form had been duly received by UPSC and, therefore, he was expecting his admission certificate but as he had not received it even in the month of April, 2010, he had made a representation to the Appellants on 20th April, 2010, making a grievance with regard to non-issuance of admission certificate to him. In pursuance of the aforestated representation made by the Respondent, a letter dated 23rd April, 2010, was addressed to the Respondent whereby he was informed that his application for Civil Services Examination (Preliminary), 2010 had not been received by the Appellants and the Respondent was also requested to furnish acknowledgment card duly stamped by UPSC to enable the Appellants to take further action in the matter.

  4. As the Respondent had not received any acknowledgement card from the Appellants, the Respondent rushed to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A. No. 470 of 2010 praying inter alia for an interim relief to the effect that the Appellants be directed to furnish an admission certificate to the Respondent so that the Respondent can take the examination. By an interim order dated 12th May, 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit a copy of his application form to the Appellants and directed the Appellants to issue an admission certificate to the Respondent so that the Respondent can take the examination. It was clarified that the admission certificate would be subject to the final result of the said original application.

  5. In pursuance of the aforestated interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Respondent had filed another application form which was received by the Appellants around 17th May, 2010 and in pursuance of the said application form, an admission certificate was issued to the Respondent and he took the Civil Services Examination (Preliminary).

  6. The aforestated original application was finally heard by the CAT and by an Order dated 1st September, 2010, the application was allowed, whereby the Appellants were directed to declare result of the Respondent and if he was found qualified, he should be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains), 2010. While allowing the application, the Tribunal had considered reply filed on behalf of the Appellants. It was stated in the reply filed on behalf of the Appellants that No. application form from the Respondent was received by the Appellants. The Respondent had specifically stated that his application form bearing No. 37573985 had been submitted through the courier named hereinabove to the Appellants on 29th January, 2010 at 4 p.m. The Respondent had mainly relied upon an acknowledgement given to him by the courier to the effect that his application form had been delivered to the Appellants on 29th January, 2010 at 4 p.m. and an affidavit had also been filed in support of the said averment by Shri V.S. Kumar Raju, Manager, Administration, Regional Office of DTDC, Hyderabad. The aforestated averments of the Respondent were specifically denied by the deponent of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellants. While passing the final order, the Tribunal had considered the above facts and had also observed about two possibilities - either the application form of the Respondent was misplaced in the office of the Appellants or the courier agency had failed to deliver the application form of the Respondent to the Appellants. The Tribunal did not come to the final conclusion that the application form of the Respondent was delivered to the Appellants or the Appellants in fact had received the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
5 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT