http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI PARMANAND

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The respondent  was appointed  as a  Junior Engineer in CPWD on  the basis of result of the competitive examinations held by  the Director  General (Works)  on  March  1,  1977. Later, as a result of the recruitment made by the U.P.S.C.in the year  1982, the  respondent. was  selected as  Assistant Engineer and  was appointed in that capacity by the Director General (Works),  CPWD by  proceedings dated  July 14, 1987. The question  arose: whether  he would  be  entitled  to  be absorbed in  the C.P.W.D.  where he,  admittedly, has worked for 18  years  or  be  allotted  to  other  department.  The respondent has relied upon Rule 15 the Rules of the Combined Service Examination  Rules, 1989  [for short,  the  "Rules"] which reads as follows :      "Departmental   candidates    will,      however  be  first  considered  for      appointment  to   service/posts  in      their own  department and  only  in      the event  of  non-availability  of      vacancies   therein    or   medical      unfitness of  such  candidates  for      the services/posts  under their own      departments,    they    shall    be      considered  for  allotment  to  the      services/posts       in       other      Ministries/Departments on the basis      of preferences expressed by them."      Relying upon  that Rule,  the Tribunal  in the impugned order dated  January 23,  1996 made  in O.A.No. 1565 of 1991 directed the petitioner to do as under:      "These   four    candidates    were      Sarvshri  Prakash  Rawat,  A.K.Das,      Mathura  Prasad  and  Ravi  Amrohi.      Learned counsel  for the  applicant      has made a statement before us that      the last named candidate, Shri Ravi      Amrohi, whose rank was 258 left the

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

    department  even   though  he   had      initially  accepted  the  offer  of      appointment.   If   that   be   the      position, then it would be possible      to adjust  the applicant    against      his   vacancy.   Accordingly,   the      respondents are  directed to adjust      the applicant  against the  vacancy      of Shri  Ravi Amrohi  and  in  case      Shri  Ravi   Amrohi  is   still  in      service then they should adjust the      applicant    against    the    next      available    vacancy    with    all      consequential benefits  as  regards      seniority.    The     appeal     is      accordingly allowed.  There will be      no order as to costs."      It is  contended for the petitioners that the intention of the  Government was  that such of the candidates who have been in  the department but secured higher ranking should be adjusted in the existing vacancies in the order of merit. If candidates do  not come  up in  the merit,  they have  to be adjusted in  other departments.  Since  the  respondent  had secured 295th rank as against others who were also similarly selected as  reserved candidates,  the respondent cannot get adjusted and  appointed in  CPWD. We  find no  force in  the contention. It  is true  that as  per list-annexure  III his name was  downgraded as  against others  whose  names  found place at  Sl.Nos.259 and  thereafter. But the reading of the list would  indicate that  the candidate  who secured higher merit position  than the respondent had been allotted in the order of  merit to CPWD. In that behalf they relied upon the rule as  amended in  1990 and  sought to  support the action takes thereunder.  The Tribunal has rightly found that as on the date  Rule 15  of the Rules was in vogue which envisages that when  the recruitment comes to be made and candidate is duly selected,  he should  be appointed and adjusted also in the vacancies  existing in  the department  in which  he had worked. It  clearly indicates that the candidates working in the respective departments are first required to be adjusted unless there  is no  vacancy  existing  or  they  are  found medically unfit  to hold  that post. In that event, they are required to be adjusted in other departments. The subsequent amendment does  not have any effect of taking away his right to be adjusted when the Rule was in vogue. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in giving direction as indicated above .      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.