Holding

The second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules is constitutionally valid, but the appellant is entitled to the same benefits as earlier appellants, i.e., permission to appear for the interview and appointment based on merit without loss of seniority.

Summary

The appellant, a candidate for the Civil Services (Main) Examination 1990, challenged the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules before the Central Administrative Tribunal, alleging it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The CAT allowed the appellant to appear in the Main examination pending final orders, and the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court, which had earlier upheld the same proviso in Civil Appeals Nos. 5439‑52/90. The Supreme Court examined whether the proviso was discriminatory and whether the interim directions of the CAT and its own order were subject to any rider affecting seniority. While the Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the second proviso, it held that the appellant is entitled to the same benefits granted to the earlier appellants, namely permission to sit for the interview and allocation of posts based on merit without loss of seniority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the directions allowing the appellant to participate in the interview and receive appropriate appointment were confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the interim directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court order are subject to any rider that would affect the seniority and appointment of candidates who appeared for the 1990 Civil Services Examination.

Legislation cited

Civil Services Examination Ruless. Rule 4 (second proviso)
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

Civil Services ExaminationRule 4Articles 14 and 16EqualitySeniorityAppointmentInterviewCentral Administrative TribunalSupreme CourtConstitutional validity

Judgment

A MAOHU~! SINHA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 13, 1991

B (S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M~ FATHIMA BEEVI AND
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.)

Service Law : Civil SeTVices Examination, 199<>-Seniority of success-
ful candidates-Directions by the Court.
C 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 ~ violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the
appellant to appear at the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990,
D subject to the result of the final orders in the original application. The
said application was transferred to this Court.

lo 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
E dated 7.12.1990, the appellants therein were allowed to appear in Civil
Services (Main) Examination, 1990; and while finally disposing of the
appeals, thejudgment 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,
F
HELD: The appellant wail also entitled to the same benefits as
granted to the appellants in Civil Appeals No. 5439-52/90, namely :
l
(i) All those candidates who appeared for the Civil Services. (Main)
G Examination, 1990, pursuant to this Court's order dated 7.12.90 and
qualified themselves for the interview, shall be permitted ~o 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 shall be given proper allocation and appointment on the
basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction
H imposed by the second proviso to rule 4 and this Court's judgment
112
-I

MADHUKAR v. U.O.I. [ PANl>IAN, J.] 113

. upholding the validity of the said proviso since the respondents have not A
.J..., . questioned and challenged the directions given by C.A.T,, Principal Bench,
Delhi in its judgment dated 20.8.1990.

(ii) The on-challenged directions give~ by the C.A.T. in its
judgment as well as directions .given by this Coul1 in its order dated B
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 confmed 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 case they have joined the C
service to which they have been allocated on ill~ result of previous C.S.E.
and such candidates will not be subjected t41· suffer loss of seniority as
held by the C. A. T. Delhi in its judgment. [pp ~14 H, 115A-D]

**Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India, [1991] Supp.1 D
SCR46

~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case No. 2 of
1991.

(Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution oflndia)
E
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.
F
' ' 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
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (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 Examina-
tion, 1990, subject to result of the final orders in the original
application. The respondents are directed accordingly. Copy
B 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
C 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:

D "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 t
categories and that the concerned candidates have passed the
·preliminary examination ofl1990 and have also applied for the
E 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 unques-
tioned and unchallenged directions given under paras 5(ii), 6
and 7 of the judgment of the CAT, Principal Bench, New
F 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
G 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, pur-
H suant to our permission given in the order dated 7.12.90 and who have
MADHUKAR v. U.O.I. [PA$~. J.] 115

come out successfully in the said examination ~ thereby have qualified A
themselves for the interview, shall be permitted lckappear for the interview
test and that if those candidates completely and.slltisfactorily qualify them-
selves 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 B
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 unchal-
lenged 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 c
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 D
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. E

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

+