Holding

The provisos of Rules 4 and 17 are inter‑linked; the second proviso of Rule 4 did not apply, and the appellant is eligible for allocation to a Group A service on the basis of the 1990 examination.

Summary

The appellant appeared for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 1989 and 1990, receiving a supplementary list for a Group A/B service in 1991 but remaining silent, and later being allocated to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) based on his 1990 rank. He was subsequently directed to join the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on the basis of the 1989 result, with the authorities invoking the second proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules to deny his IRS allocation. The appellant challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his claim, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court held that the provisos of Rules 4 and 17 are inter‑connected and cannot operate independently; the conditions for the second proviso to Rule 4 were not satisfied, and the appellant was never "approved for appointment" under Rule 17. Consequently, the appellant remained eligible for allocation to a Group A service on the basis of the 1990 examination, and the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, directing the respondents to consider his final allocation to Central Services Group A.

Issues considered

The interrelationship between the second proviso of Rule 4 and the provisos of Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules and whether they can operate independently.
Whether the conditions precedent to the second proviso of Rule 4 were satisfied in the appellant's circumstances.
Whether the appellant was "approved for appointment" under Rule 17, thereby rendering him ineligible for allocation based on the 1990 examination.
Whether the appellant's silence to the earlier allocation constituted acceptance, invoking the second proviso of Rule 4.
Whether the appellant should be considered for final allocation to Central Services Group A on the basis of the 1990 examination result.

Subjects

service lawCivil Services Examination RulesRule 4Rule 17eligibilityallocationCentral Services Group AappointmentCentral Administrative Tribunalappeal

Judgment

SHRI PRATAP SINGH A
"' v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 21, 1996

[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Civil Seivices Examination Rules-Rule 17 second proviso.

Central Services Group 'A '-Appointment to--Candidate appointed on
c
basis of earlier Civil Services Examination-Before declaration of result of
subsequent examination-Although he did not decline to accept same-How-
ever, on basis of subsequent examination such a candidate allocated to a
better Central Service Group 'A '-Accordingly candidate reported to Academy
for Foundation Course-Bar under second proviso to R.17-Applicability D
of-Held : not applicable to a candidate to whom appointment on basis of
,, earlier examination offered to a Central Services Group 'A' post after being
allocated to a better Central Se1vices Group 'A' post on basis of subsequelll
examination and who joined Academy pursuant thereto-Mere fact that
before declaration of result of subsequent examination he was infonned of
E
being considered for appointment to a Group 'A' Seivice on basis of earlier
examination and he did not decline to accept same, immateriaf-Appointing
authority directed to consider candidate for final allocation to Central Services
' Group 'A' post on basis of subsequent examination.

• Central Services Group 'A '-Appointment to-Rules 4 and 17-lnter- F
connection between-Held: Second proviso to R.4 and two provisos to R.17
along with other relevant provisions made in iJ:ltegrated scheme as regards
eligibility and appointment to a Service-Hence, R.17 could not operate
independently of R.4.

The appellant appeared at the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in G
the year 1989 but was not recommended for any appointment. He, there·
,, fore, appeared at the CSE 1990. After the end of the Preliminary and Main
Examinations, in January 1991 he was informed that his name was recom·
mended through a supplementary list for being considered for appoint·
ment to the Central Services, Group 'A'/Group 'B'. The appellant did not H
11
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A respond to this offer. Then in July 1991 he was offered an appointment as .,.
Assistant Commandant in the CISF. This time also he remained silent. On
the basis of his rank in the merit list of the 1990 Examination he was
allocated to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) out of the Group 'A' Services.
Accordingly, he reported at the SVPNP Academy for the foundational
course meant for IRS probationers. Thereafter, he was informed that on
B
the basis of the 1989 Examination, he was allocated to the CISF and was
directed to report for basic training for that service. He was further
informed that in view of the provisions contained in the second proviso to
Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules he was not eligible for
allocation to Group 'A' Service on the basis of the 1990 Examination and
c was, therefore, not so allocated. The appellant filed an application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging his aforesaid allocation
to CISF which was dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the
present appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the first proviso to
D Rule 17 of the Rules could not operate independently of Rule 4 of the Rules;
that the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules did not apply to the
appellant; and that the appellant was not a candidate who had been '.
approved for appointment as contemplated by Rule 17 of the Rules.

,E Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The provisos to both the Rules 4 and 17 of the civil
Services Examination Rules deal with the case of a candidate who after
••
appearing at the earlier examination has again appeared at the next
F examination to compete for a higher and better service. Thus, the second •
proviso to Rule 4 and the two provisos to Rule 17 are not only inter-con·
nected but along with other relevant provisions make an integrated scheme
as regards the eligibility of such a candidate for allocation and appoint-
ment to a service. Whereas the second proviso to Rule 4 specifically makes
the eligibility therennder subject to the provisions of Rule 17 also the
G provisos to Rule 17 do not specifically refer to the first proviso to Rule 4
but the moment a candidate appears at the next examination the restric-
lion contained in the first proviso to Rule 4 becomes applicable to him
and, therefore, the provisos to Rule 17 cannot have independent applica·
lion to a candidate who has appeared at the next examination. Before a
H candidate is approved for appointment to JPS or Central Services, Group
PRATAPSINGHv. U.0.1. 13

. 'A' he has to be allocated to that service and for that reason the first A
proviso to Rule 4 will start operating earlier than the prmisos to Rule 17
can apply. Possibly, Rule 17 can independently operate only where the
restriction imposed by the first proviso to Rule 4 is not attracted. The
tribunal was, therefore, wrong in holding that Rule 17 can operate inde-
pendently of Rule 4 even in case of a candidate to whom the first proviso
B
to Rule 4 applies. [19-E-H; 20-A-C]

1.2. If a candidate appears in the next Civil Services Examination
(CSE) for competing for IAS, IFS, IPS or Central Services, Group 'A'
before he is allocated to the IPS or Central Services, Group 'A' then he
will not fall within the purview of the said proviso nor will he be under anc
obligation to seek permission to abstain from the probationary training in
order to appear at the next examination. If a candidate is not allocated or
approved for appointment to the IPS or Central Services, Group 'A' then
he would be free to appear at the next CSE and in that case not only his
result of the earlier examination but the preferences expressed by him will
D
become irrelevant. In such a case neither second proviso to Rule 4 nor the
first proviso to Rule 17 will apply to him. [20-E-G]
·' .
2.1. The Central Administrative Tribunal erred in taking the view that

{
- by remaining silent and not specifically declining the allocation made in
January 1991 and the offer of appointment made in July 1991 he incurred E
an obligation to be governed by the result of the 1989 examination and
forfeited the right to be allocated to a Group 'A' Service on the basis of the
1990 examination. The conditions precedent to the application of the second
proviso to Rule 4 were not satisfied and, therefore, the appellant's remain-
• ing silent did not have such an effect. Moreover, the allocation of the F
appellant to Group 'A' Service on the basis of the 1990 examination was
earlier than his approval for appointment to the CISF on the basis of the
1989 examination. The second proviso to Rule 17 could not make the
appellant ineligible. The Second proviso to Rule 17 applies to a candidate
who is appointed to a Central Service, Group 'B' on the result of an earlier
examination and desires to be considered for higher service on the basis of G
result of the next examination. The appellant was, at no time, allotted, much
~
, less appointed, to Central Service, Group 'B' on the result of the 1989
examination. The Government was, therefore, wong in treating him as
ineligible for allocation to IRS on the basis of the 1990 examination by
resorting to the second proviso to Rule 17. Therefore, neither the first H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A proviso nor the second proviso to Role 17 was attracted in the instant case.
[21-D-H; 22-A-D)
2.2. The respondents are directed to consider the appellant for final
allocation to Central Services, Group 'A' on the basis of the 1990 examina-
tion. [22-E] '
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6243 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.94 of the ·Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 3114 of 1991.
c
Ramji Srinivasan, R. Sasiprabhu for the Appellant.

K. Amreshwari, Naveen Prakash, Anil Katiyar and S. N. Terdol for
the Respondents.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

NANAVATI, J. The order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissiug his O.A. No. 3114 of
..
1991, is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

E The appellant appeared at the Civil Services examination (CSE} held
by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC} in the year 1989. The
result of the examination was declared on 31.5.90 He was not recom-
mended by the UPSC for any appointment. He, therefore, appeared at the
CSE 1991. Preliminary Examination was held on 9.6.90, and its result was
F declared on 7.8.90 He was declared qualified to appear in the Main '
Examination. The written Examination commenced on 17.12.90 and ended
on 28.12.90. Before the result for 1990 Examination was declared he
received a letter dated 9.1.91 from the UPSC on 14.1.91 informing him that
as a result of some candidates not joining or not being available/eligible for
appointment or not being found medically fit, his name was recommended
G through a supplementary list prepared on the basis of the result of 1989
Examination. f-!:e was further informed that he would be consi4,ered for
appointment to the, Central Services Group 'A'/Group ~B' Servic9 on the
1
basis of his rank and preference, if he was rotherwise found eligible. 'He was
also given an opportunity to revise the ordbr of preferences indicated by
H hfil.J, earlier. By the said letter he was directed to intimate specifically if he
PRATAP SINGH v. U.0.1. [NANAVATI,J.] 15

was interested in joining the Central Industrial Security Force Group 'A' A
(CISF) or not. The appellant did not respond to this letter and remained
silent. Then by a letter dated 21.6.91 received by him in the first week of
July 1991, he was offered an appointment as Assistant Commandant in the
CISF. He was also informed that if he desired to accept the offer then he
should despatch the agreement and the declaration and complete other
B
formalities. He did nothing. This time also he remained silent and did not
inform the authorities that he was not willing to accept it.

.. Meanwhile, the appellant having passed some other UPSC Examina-
tion was appointed on 25.2.91 to the Border Roads Engineering Services.
In the first week of June 1991 the result of the CSE 1990 (Main) was c
declared and on the basis thereof he was called to appear in the inter-
view/personalit/ test. He appeared before the Interview Board of the
UPSC on the specified date. On 31.7.91 the final result of the 1990
Examination was declared and he was assigned Rank No. 299 in the merit
list. This high ranking in the merit list enabled him to be allocated to a D
better Group A Service, namely, Indian Revenue Service (IRS). On 9.9.91
he received a letter dated 31.8.91 intimating that he was being considered
,. for appointment to the IRS on the basis of the result of 1990 Exarninatim.
He was informed that it was only a tentative allocation and might undergo
a change on consideration of his rank and expressed preferences. He was
further informed that a formal offer of appointment would be sent to him E
by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority of the Service after final
service allocation was made. He was directed to report to the Director.
S.V.P.N.P. Academy, Hyderabad on 15.9.91 if he was willing to be con-
sidered for appointment to that Service. As he was selected for the IRS he
• resigned as an Engineer in the Border Roads Engineering Service and
reported at the Academy at Hyderabad for the third foundational course F
meant for probationers joining IRS. On 20.12.91 he received a letter dated
17.12.91 from the Ministry of Personnel and Training Informing him that
on the basis on the result of the 1989 Examination he was allocated to CISF
and that he should report to the Assistant Director, National Industrial
Security Academy at Hyderabad for basic training commencing from G
30.12.91 immediately after conclusion of the foundational course which he
was undergoing. He was further informed that in view of the provisions
contained in the second proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examina-
tion Rules he was not eligible for allocation to Group A Service on the
basis of the 1990 Examination and was, therefore, not so allocated. Ag-
grieved by that communication dated 17.12.91 the appellant approached H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the action of the
authorities as arbitrary and illegal.

Two contentions were raised before the Tribunal. The first conten-
tion was that Rule 17 would apply only to those .candidates in respect of
whom the conditions in the second proviso to Rule 4 are fulfilled. The
B second contention was that in any case Rule 17 did not apply to the
appellant as he was not a candidate who had been approved for appoint-
ment to Central Services Group 'A' . The Tribunal rejected both these _
contentions and held that Rule 4 does not exclude a belated intimation
regarding allocation and as such intimation was given to the appellant
C before the CSE 1990 was over the second proviso to Rule 4 became
applicable to the appellant and consequently the provisos to Rule 17 also
became applicable to him. The Tribunal also held that Rule 17 can operate
independently of Rule 4. It also held that the appellant was 'approved for
appointment' as contemplated by Rule 17 and, therefore, also the Govern-
ment was right in not allocating the appellant to a Group 'A' service on
D the basis of CSE 1990. Taking this view the Tribunal dismissed the
appellant's application. Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has not only challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the
appellant can be said to be 'a candidate who has been approved for
appointment' but, has forcefully submitted that the decision of the Tribunal
E that the first proviso to Rule 17 can operate independently of Rule 4 is
clearly wrong. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly
interpreted Rule 4 and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the
second proviso to the said rule applied to the case of the appellant. On the
other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has sup-
ported the order passed by the Tribunal on the same grounds which were
F urged before it.

Rules 4 and 17 in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of this
appeal read as under:

G "4. Every candidate appearing at the Examination, who is
otherwise eligible, shall be permitted four attempts at the Examina-
tion, irrespective of the number of attempts he has already availed,
of at the !AS etc. Examination held in previous years. The restric-
tion shall be effective from the Civil Services Examination held in
H 1979. Any attempts made at the Civil Services (Preliminary) Ex-
PRATAPSINGH.i. iJ':O.I. [NANAVATI,J.] 17

amination held in 1979 and onwards will count as attempts for this A
purpose:

Provided further that a candidate who on the basis of the results
of the previous Civil Services Examination, had been allocated to B
the l.P.S, or Central Services, Group "A" but who expressed his
intention to appear in the next Civil Services (Main) Examination
for competing for !AS, IFS, JPS, or Central Services, Group "A"
and who was permitted to abstain from the probationary training
in order to so appear, shall be eligible to do so, subject to the
provisions of Rule 17.. If the candidate is allocated to a service c
on the basis of the next Civil Services Main Examination he shall I
join either that service or the service to which he was allocated on
the basis of the previous C.S .E. failing which his allocation to 1h~=
service based on one or both examinations, as the case may be, . ·
shall stand cancelled and notwithstanding anything in Rule 8, a D
candidate who accepts allocation to a service and is appointed to
a service shall not be eligible to appear again in the Civil Services
Examination unless he has first resigned from the service.

"17. Due consideration will be given at the time of making
appointments on the results of the examination to the preferences E
expressed by a candidate for various services at the time of his
application. The appointment to various services will also be
governed by the Rules/Regulations in force as applicable to the
respective Service at the time of appointment.
• Provided that a candidate who has been approved for appointment F
to the Indian Police Service/Central Services. Group "A" mentioned
in Col.2 below on the results of an earlier examination will be
considered only for appointments in services mentioned against that
services in Col3 below on the results of this examination.

SI. Service to which approved Service for which eligible G
No. for appointment to compete
1. Indian Police Service !AS, IFS and Central
11 11
Services, Group A
2. Central Services Group "A" !AS, IFS and JPS
H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Provided further that a candidate who is appointed to a Central
Service, Group "B" on the results of an earlier examination will be
considered only for appointment to IAS, IFS, JPS and Central
Services, Group "A".

B Ruic 4 is an eligibility rule and the main part of that rule permits a
candidate to appear at the said examination in all four times. The second
proviso to rule 4 restricts this right of a candidate further. It provides that
if a candidate is allocated to a service on the basis of a particular examina-
tion and is appointed to a service he cannot thereafter appear again in the
CSE unless he first resigns from the service. It also restricts the right of a
C candidate to avail of four opportunities by providing that a candidate who
on the basis of the result of the previous CSE had been allocated to the
IPS or Central Service Group 'A' but who expressed his intention to
appear in the next CSE (Main) for competing for !AS, IFS, JPS, or central
Service Group 'A' and who was permitted to abstain from the probationary
D training in order to so appear, shall be eligible to do so, subject to the
provisions of Rule 17. A candidate who is allocated to the JPS or Central
Services Group 'A' on the basis of the result of the previous CSE is
permitted to appear in the next CSE with a view to better his chances or
to improve his prospects. But he can do so provided he expresses his
intention to appear in the next CSE for competing for !AS, IFS, JPS or
E Central Services Group 'A' and if he is permitted to abstain from the
probationary training in order to so appear. Even this eligibility is made
subject to the provisions of Rule 17. If the permission as contemplated by
this proviso is granted to a candidate and if the candidate is allocated to
service on the basis of the next CSE then he has an option either to join
p that service or the service to which he was allocated on the basis of the •
previous CSE. If he does not exercise this option his allocation to the
service based on one or both the examinations will stand cancelled.

The said proviso thus carves out an exception to Rule 4 and restricts
the right--0f a candidate to appear for all the permitted attempts at the
G examination if the conditions specified in the proviso are satisfied. Ob-
viously, such a provision has to be construed strictly and can be applied
only when the pre-requisite conditions are satisfied.

The second proviso to Rule 4 refers to Rule 17 and thus both the
H rules are inter-connected in the matter of defining eligibility of a candidate.
PRATAPSINGHv. U.O.I.[NANAVATI,J.] 19
Whereas Rule 4 provides for eligibility for appearing at the examination A
Rule 17 provides for eligibility for appointment to various services on the
basis of the result of the examination and the preferences expressed by the
candidate. The main part of Rule 17 provides for giving due consideration
to the preferences expressed by the candidate for various services at the
time of his application, subject lo the rules or regulations in that behalf.
B
The first proviso to that rule restricts such consideration by providing that
a candidate who has been approved for appointment to Indian police
Services/Central Civil Services, Group 'A' on the basis of the results of an
earlier examination will be considered only for appointment in services
• mentioned in Col. 3 of that proviso, on the basis of the result of the next
examination. It thus puts a further restriction on the choice of the can- c
didate to appear again at the subsequent examinations and compete for a
higher or better service if he has been approve_d for appointment for any
of the specified services on the basis of the results of an earlier examina-
tion. Like Rule 4 which provides for number of times a candidate is eligible
to compete at the CSE, Rule 17 provides for the services for which he is D
eligible to compete. The first proviso to Rule 4 further restricts his
eligibility to the extent mentioned therein to compete again at the CSE
once he is allocated to the !PS or Central Services, Group 'A' on the basis
of the result of the previous CSE. The two provisos to Rule 17 likewise
further restricts the eligibility of the candidate to compete for a higher or
better service once he is approved for appointment to !PS or Central E
Services, Group 'A'. The provisos to both these rules deal with the case
of a candidate who after appearing at the earlier examination has again
appeared at the next examination to compete for a higher and better
service. Thus, the second proviso to Rule 4 and the two provisos to Rule
.. 17 are not only inter-connected but along with other relevant provisions F
make an integrated scheme as regards the eligibility of such a candidate
for allocation and appointment to a service. Whereas the second proviso
to Rule 4 specifically makes the eligibility thereunder subject to the
provisions of rule 17 also the provisos to Rule 17 do not specifically refer
to the first proviso to Rule 4 but the moment a candidate appears at the G
next examination the restriction contained in the first proviso to Rule 4
becomes applicable to him and, therefore, the provisos to Rule 17 cannot
have independent application to a candidate who has appeared at the next
examination. Therefore, the provisos to Rule 17 though they appear to have
independent application or operation they cannot operate independently
in case of a candidate who has been allocated to a particular service on H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A the basis of the result of the earlier examination. Before a canpidate is
approved for appointment to !PS or Central Services, Group 'A' he has to
be allocated to that service and for that reason the first proviso to Rule 4
will start operating earlier than the provisos to Rule 17 can apply. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the provisos to Rule 17 can have no inde-
pendent application in view of second proviso to Rule 4. Possibly, it can
B
independently operate only where the restriction imposed by the first
proviso to Rule 4 is not attracted. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in
holding that Rule 17 can operate independently of Rule 4 even in case of
a candidate to whom the first proviso to Rule 4 applies.

C The next point to be considered is whether the requisite conditions
of the second proviso to Rule 4 can be said to have been satisfied in this
case. The said proviso contemplates a situation where the candidate, on
the basis of the result of the previous CSE, has been allocated to the !PS
or Central Services, Group 'A' but who expresses his intention to appear
D in the next CSE for competing for a higher or better service. Obviously, to
bring the case within the purview of the said proviso allocation has to
precede expression of his intention by the candidate to appear in the next
CSE. It is also implied that allocation on the basis of the result of the
previous CSE has to be before the declaration of holding the next CSE.
Otherwise, it would not not be possible for a candidate to express his
E intention to appear in the next CSE for competing for !AS, IFS, !PS or
Central Services, Group 'A' before he is allocated to the !PS or Central
Services, Group 'A' then he will not fall within the purview of the said
proviso nor will he be under an obligation to seek permission to abstain
from the probationary training in order to appear at the next examination.
p If a candidate is not allocated or approved for the appointment to the !PS •
or Central Services, Group 'A' then he would be free to appear at the next
CSE and in that case not only his result of the earlier examination but the
preferences expressed by him will become irrelevant. In such a case neither
second proviso to Rule 4 nor the first proviso to Rule 17 will apply to him
because there would be no justification to deprive him of his chance to
G appear at the next CSE and compete for any service that he likes. If a
belated allocation or approval for appointment is to be considered valid
for attracting the second proviso to Rule 4 and the first proviso to Rule 17
then that would seriously affect the right conferred by the main parts of
Rules 4 and 17 on the candidate. Moreover, as the first proviso to Rule 4
H lays down an eligibility criteria it would not be open to the government to
PRATAP SINGH v. U.O.L [NANAVATI, l] 21

-
., .,, waive the consequences following from the non-fulfilment of the conditions
mentioned therein as that would affect the prospects of other candidates.
The Tribunal was, therefore, not right when it held that a belated alloca-
A

- tion or approval does not have the effect of prejudicially affectiog the right
of a candidate. ·

B
So far as the appellant is concerned he was not recommended by the
UPSC for any appointment on the basis of the result of the CSE 1989. It
was under these circumstances that he appeared for the CSE 1990. He not
.... only appeared in the Preliminary Examination but also in the Main Ex-
amination. Only thereafter, that is, on 14.1.91 he was informed that his
name was recommended through a supplementary list for being considered C
for appointment to the Central Services, Group 'A'/Group 'B'. The appel-
lant did not respond to th~ offer. On the contrary he preferred his fate to
be governed by the result Iof the CSE 1990. Luckily for him, the result of
the CSE was better and on the basis of his rank in the merit list he was
allocated to IRS out of the Group 'A' Services. The appellant was not D
approved for any appoiotment on the basis of the result of 1989 examina-
tion till the first week of July 1991. The Tribunal has taken the view th.at
by. remaining silent and not specifically decliniog the allocation made in
Ja.iliary 1991 and the offer of appointment made in July 1991 he incurred
an obligation to be governed by the result of the 1989 examination and
forfeited the right to be allocated to a Group 'A' Service on the basis of E
the 1990 examination, allocation to the !AS, IFS and !PS being out of
question because of his low rank. The Tribunal was not right in takiog this
view because the conditions precedent to the application of the second
.. proviso to Rule 4 were not satisfied and, therefore, the appellant's remain-
ing silent did not have such an effect. Moreover, the allocation of the F
appointment to a Group 'A' Service on the basis of the 1990 examination
was earlier than his approval for appointment to the CISF on the basis of
the 1989 examination. By the letter dated 31st August, 1991 the appellant
was informed that on the basis of the 1990 examioation he was considered
for appointment to the IRS though it was also stated that the said allocation G
was tentative and there was a possibility of its undergoing a change on
consideration of his rank and expressed preferences. He was directed to
join the third foundational course for. probationers at the S.V.P.N.P.
Academy, Hyderabad. He joined that academy as a candidate allocated
to IRS and took training in the months of October and November 1991.
Thereafter in December 1991 he was told that as he was allocated to CISF H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A on the basis of 1989 examination he should report to the Assistant Director
of the National Industrial Security Academy at Hyderabad for basis
training commencing from 30.12.91. He was also told by the impugned'

B
decision contained in the letter dated 17th December, 1991 that he was not'
eligible for allocation to Group 'A' Service on the basis of the 1990
examination in view of the provisions contained in the second proviso to'
-
Rule 17. It is difficult to appreciate how the second proviso to Rule 17
made the appellant ineligible. The second proviso to Rule 17 applies to a
candidate who is appointed to a Central Service, Group 'B' on the result
of an earlier examination and desires to be considered for higher service
on the basis of the result of the next examination. The appellant was, at no
C time, allotted, much less appointed, to Central Service, Group 'B' on the
result of the 1989 examination. The Government was, therefore, wrong in
treating him as ineligible for allocation to IRS on the basis of the 1990
examination by resorting to the second proviso to Rule 17. Therefore,
neither the first proviso nor the second proviso to Rule 17 was attracted
I) in this case and the impugned action/decision of the Government to treat
the appellant as ineligible for appointment to IRS on the basis of the 1990
examination has to be regarded as bad and without any authority of law.

We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the
Tribunal and direct the respondents to consider him for fmal allocation to
E Central Services, Group 'A' on the basis of the 1990 examination. In view
of the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.

•