G VIVEKANAND SWAMIJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in this case, is aggrieved that following his success in the Combined Engineering Services Examination, 1995 (CESE 1995), he has not been allotted to his parent Department, i.e., CPWD/Central Engineering Service (CES).

(2.) Heard Mr. Dalip Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. E.X. Joseph, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Khatter for the respondents.

(3.) IN the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that applicant's name did not originally figure in the list of recommended candidates on the basis of the CESE 1995. Subsequently, following the rectification of certain errors, three more candidates were added to the list, including the applicant. While the UPSC conducts the CESE for filling engineering posts in as many as 55 Departments/ Ministries of Central Govt., the work of allocation of all the qualified candidates on the basis of the notified criterion which envisages rank, preferences exercised by the candidate, medical fitness, etc., was entrusted to Railway Ministry. Selected individuals/ candidates' cases are taken up subject to their medical fitness and their preference and depending on the availability of vacancies, services. While Considering the allocation successful departmental candidates are generally considered for allocation in their parent department, depending on their relative merit so that the experience gained by them is made available to the Department without compromising the merit. The allocation of departmental candidate was not different from the open market candidate and when the turn of allocation came, he was first considered for his Department for which he may or may not have given his first preference. But the same would depend on his position in the merit list, IN the normal circumstances, the person is considered for his own Department as he had appeared in the examination with age relaxation and this was meant as a restriction rather than a benefit compromising the merit position in the list. The applicant, in this case, came as a departmental candidate with age relaxation for the CESE 1995 and obtained 96th rank in the merit list. He was the last but third candidate to be included in the selection. His case was considered for CES wherefrom he came but could not be allocated, as he was very much lower down in the merit list and the only two vacancies in the general category--unreserved--were available for the year 1995 for CPWD/CES, they were filled by the candidates holding the 19th and 20th positions by merit. He was, therefore, allocated to MES for being posted as Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW.). The applicant in this case was seeking allocation to CES which has been denied to candidates from 21st to 25th ranks merely because he originally held from the said Department. He has thus claiming not only age relaxation but also reservation for post for which was not provided for. The applicant had claimed that his case was similar to those of Shri Parmanand and Shri Rajendra Singh candidates of 1989 Examination. IN terms of Rule 15 of 1989 Rules, Departmental candidates arc to be first considered for allotment to their own department without any restriction, subsequently, Rules of 1990 have provided that allocation should be on the basis of merit. Parmanand took the examination in 1989 though he was lower in the merit list and preferred allocation of Department which was denied. On his approaching this Tribunal in O.A. 1565/1991, his claim was endorsed by the Tribunal on plain reading of the rule. Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the Tribunal's order on the ground that without the nomenclature 'subject to merit' in the rule departmental candidates enjoyed overriding priority in the matter of allocation of department in the Engineering Services Examination 1989. The aspect of merit had not formed part of the notified rules for that year concerned. The case of Rajendra Singh similar. However, the rule position had undergone a change with the instructions of CESE 1990 on wards whereby the concept of merit was brought in, That Being the case, the applicant cannot plead that his case was covered by the rules and their he should have been given CPWD/CES, he had asked for, as he was originally from CPWD.