MOHAN KR SINGHANIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard all the learned counsel appearing in their respective appeals and also the learned Additional Solicitor for respondents for a very considerable length of time. The main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of all the appellants is that the second proviso to R. 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules (published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-1 Section, dated December 17, 1988) is offending Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to law. As the above question requires a careful examination with regard to the individual cases listed for consideration and as we are informed that the Central Services Examination commences on 17-12-1990, we are constrained to give the following directions on the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its judgment dated 20th August 1990. The relevant conclusions as they appear from the concluding portion of the judgment of the Tribunal. are as follows:-

(2.) It is pertinent to note that the respondent has not challenged the above directions given in the concluding part of the judgment. So far as the conclusions under paras Nos. 6 and 7 reproduced above, the learned Additional Solicitor General states that the respondent has no objection to have them sustained. So far as the directions under para No. 5(ii) is concerned, the Tribunal has allowed the candidates who have been allocated to the I.P.S. or the Central Services, Group 'A' to sit at the next Civil Service Examination subject to the condition that they must be within the permissible age limit and without having to resign from the service to which they have been allocated nor would they lose their original seniority in the service to which they are allocated if they are unable to take training with their own Batch. The Tribunal has used the expression "may be allowed to sit at the next Civil Service Examination but it did not restrict it only with regard to the preliminary examination as now contended by the learned Additional Solicitor, according to whom those candidates are not eligible to sit for the main examination since the Tribunal has upheld the validity of the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules.

(3.) In order to properly understand and appreciate the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal under para 5(ii), we shall reproduce some interim orders made by the Tribunal during the hearing of the O.As.