Madhukar Sinha v. Union of India and Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case No. 2 of 1991. (Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution oflndia) Salman Khurshid, Madhan Panikkar, M~s: 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 Respon9ents. ' ' The Judgment ·of the Court was delivered by S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The above case has been registered in pursuance of our order dated 23.11.90 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.546/90 transferring O.A.No.191 of 1990 uqder Article 139 (A) of the Constitution of India from the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, G Pat~a 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 provi,so, to Rule 4 of C.S.E. as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution' of India. On 29.8.90 the H (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R A 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 submitted that the interim direction given by the Patna Bench if covered by the directions given in paras S(ii) and 6 of the order of CAT, Delhi he has no further submission to be I".ade, 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 main examination subject to the condition that each candidate satisfies the Secretary, Union Public Service CommissiQn that he/she falls within these categories and that the concerned candidates have passed the ·preliminary examination ofl1990 and have also applied for the main examination within the\ due date.· This permission is only for the ensuing examination1 As we are now permitting those who have passed the prelimii)ary 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 conditions 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 t MADHUKAR U.O.I. [PA$~.

J.] come out successfully in the said examination ~ thereby have qualified themselves for the interview, shall be permitted lckappear for the interview test and that if those candidates completely and.slltisfactorily qualify themselves by getting· through the written examinatiQrli$ as well as· the interview shall be given proper allocation and appoiutmerlt :on the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second proviso and our present judgment upholding thelv'alidity of the said proviso since the respondents have not questioned anq challenged the directions given by CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi in paragrttphs S(ii), 6 and 7 of its judgment dated 20.8.1990.

We would like tom$~ 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 th¢1 result of the cases and hence those directions would be confined only. ~o those candidates who appeared for CSE, 1990 and no further. The seln!prity of those successful candidates in CSE, 1990 would depend on the ~f!Vice to which they have qualified. The seniority of the left-out candidat¢s Would be maintained in case they have joined the service to which they iul~ been allocated on the result of previous CSE and such candidates will p4!>t 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 transferred case is dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the main judgment in Ci~l Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90 and batches.

No order as to costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.