PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi, dismissing his oa no. 3114 of 1991, is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) 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 31/5/1990. He was not recommended by the UPSC for any appointment. He, therefore, appeared at the CSE 1990. Preliminary Examination was held on 9/6/1990, and its result was declared on 7/8/1990. He was declared qualified to appear in the Main Examination. The written examination commenced on 17/12/1990 and ended on 28/12/1990. Before the result of 1990 Examination was declared he received a letter dated 9/1/1991 from the UPSC on 14/1/1991 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 through a supplementary list prepared on the basis of the result of 1989 Examination. He was further informed that he would be considered for appointment to the central Services Group 'a'/group 'b' Service on the basis of his rank and preference, if he was otherwise found eligible. He was also given an opportunity to revise the order of preferences indicated by him earlier. By the said letter he was directed to intimatespecifically if he was interested in joining the central Industrial Security Force Group 'a' (CISF) or not. The appellant did not respond to this letter and remained silent. Then by a letter dated 21/6/1991, received by him in a 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 formalities. He did nothing. This time also he remained silent and did not inform the authorities that 'he was not willing to accept it.

(3.) Meanwhile, the appellant having passed some other UPSC Examination was appointed on 25/2/1991 to the Border Roads Engineering Services. In the first week of June 1991 the result of the CSE 1990 (Main) was declared and on the basis thereof he was called to appear in the interview/personality test. He appeared before the Interview Board of the UPSC on the specified date. On 31/7/1991 the final result of the 1990 Examination was declared and he was assigned Rank No. 299 in the merit c list. This high ranking in the merit list enabled him to be allocated to a better Group A Service, namely, Indian Revenue Service (IRS). On 9/9/1991 he received a letter dated 31/8/1991 intimating that he was being considered for appointment to the IRS on the basis of the result of 1990 Examination. 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 by the Cadre Controlling Authority concerned of the Service after final service allocation was made. He was directed to report to the Director, SVPNP Academy, Hyderabad on 15/9/1991, if he was willing to be considered 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 e Academy at Hyderabad for the third foundational course meant for probationers joining IRS. On 20/12/1991 he received a letter dated 17/12/1991 from the Ministry of Personnel and Training informing him that on the basis of 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 30-12- 1991 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 Examination Rules, 1992 he was not eligible for allocation to Group A Service on the basis of the 1990 Examination and was, therefore, not so allocated. Aggrieved by that communication dated 17/12/1991 the appellant 9 approached the central Administrative tribunal and challenged the action of the authorities as arbitrary and illegal.