http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GAURAV DWIVEDI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/05/1999

BENCH: B.N. Kirpal, S. Rajendra Babu.

JUDGMENT:

D E R

       Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

       The question involved is as to  how  any  candidates should  be  called  for  interview/viva voce by the union of public service  commission  (for  short  the  U.P.S.C.)  for recruitment to the central services.

       An  advertisement  was  published  by  the  U.P.S.C. Which   was   to   the  effect  that  for  Central  Services Examination to be conducted in 1988 the  approximate  number of vacancies  would be 740.  It was clearly stipulated there in that this figure of 740 was subject to alteration.

       Preliminary examination was held in May 1998 and the result was   declared   in   July  1998.    Those  who  were successful, then took part in the main examination which was conducted in October/ December  19998.    The  case  of  the appellant  is  that in March 1999, for the reasons stated in its affidavit in reply in the High Court to  which  we  need not  advert  to  at this stage, the number of vacancies were finally determined to be at a figure  of  470.    It  is  an admitted  case  that the number if candidates who are called for interview/viva voce test are  not  ore  than  twice  the number of  vacancies  which  are  required to be filled.  In view of this on 26th of March, 1999  results  were  declared and  964  candidates  who  were  successful, were called for interview.

       It  is  thereafter  that  the  present   respondents approached  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Lucknow Bench with a contention that  1480  candidates  should  have been called  for  interview  and not 940.  The basis was the number of vacancies which were finally  notified  were  7400 and,  therefore, 1480 candidates should have been called for interview.   The  tribunal  declined  to  give  any  relief. Thereafter  a  writ  petition  was  filled any by an interim order the Lucnow Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  has directed  that  the  respondents,  who are not the first 940 candidates but their position in the order of merit is lower down  till  1480,  should  also  be  called  for  interview. Liberty  was  granted  to  the appellant here in to call for interview even those candidates who were higher in rank than the respondents but lower in position than 940.  It is  this the direction which is challenged before us.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules  1998 states  that  the  number  of  vacancies to be filled on the result of the examination will be specified  in  the  notice issued by the commission.  Ti the notice which was issued it was  stated,  as already noted, that the number of vacancies was only an approximate number which was subject to  chance. There  is no rule which has been brought to our notice which prohibits the  change  in  the  number  of  vacancies  which prohibits  the  change  in the number of vacancies which are once notified.  Indeed it is not necessary or incumbent upon the Government  to  fill-up  all  the  vacancies  which  are notified even  if  candidates  have  been  selected.   It is contended by the learned counsel  for  the  respondent  that even  though  the number of vacancies could be changed, this could only have been done after  the  candidates  have  been interviewed  on  the  basis that the number of vacancies was 740.  The submission is, if this is not done the  candidates will lose one chance.

       We are  unable  to agree with this contention.  Once it is considered, and in our opinion rightly so, the  number of vacancies to be filled could be reduced then the Rules do not  stipulate  that the entire process of examinations must be completed, including the conduct  of  the  interview/viva voce  test,  on  the  basis  of original number of vacancies which were notified.  When before  the  declaration  of  the result of the main examination, the number of vacancies have been  determined then it was only proper that candidates who are twice the number of revised  vacancies  are  called  for interview and not more.  It is to be borne in mind that this being  470  only,  940 candidates were required to be called for interview.  By calling more than this number may  result in  prejudice  to  one or more of the candidates who were in the position of 940 or above.  For example, it  is  possible that a candidate at Serial No.941, who is not entitled to be called  for  interview,  if he is permitted to be called for interview, may secure higher arks in the viva voce that  and he  oust  those candidates who were higher in rank to him in the merit list.  The High Court, in  our  opinion,  was  not right  in  permitting  more than 940 candidates being called for interview/viva voce.

       From  the  facts  enumerated  her  in  above  it  it difficult  to  agree  with  the  contention  of  the learned counsel for the respondent that any prejudice will be caused to the candidates.  It is clear  that  in  March  19999  the final  result  of the main examination had been declared and it was notified to the candidates concerned as to  how  many of them  have  been  called  for  interview.  Those who were unsuccessful could, in accordance with the Rules,  take  the subsequent examination.  It can happen that even where  some of  the  candidates  have been called for interview they may still not take a chance and may sit in the  examination  for the   year  1999  because  they  may  not  be  sure  whether ultimately,  after  the  viva  voce  test,  they  would   be selected.   Varying  of  vacancies  during the course of the examination does not to our mind, cause any prejudice to the candidates.

       For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order of  the High  Court  dated  29th  April,  1999 is set aside and this appeal is allowed.  There will be no order as to costs. e subsequent examination.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3