http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4