UNION OF INDIA Vs. PARMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in CPWD on the basis of result of the competitive examinations held by the Director General (Works) on 1/3/1977. Later, as a result of the recruitment made by the UPSC in the year 1982, the respondent was selected as Assistant Engineer and was appointed in that capacity by the Director General (Works) , CPWD by proceedings dated 14/7/1987. The question arose whether he would be entitled to be absorbed in the CPWD where he, admittedly, has worked for 18 years or be allotted to another department. The respondent has relied upon Rule 15 of the Rules of the Combined Services Examination Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules") which reads as follows:

(2.) Relying upon that Rule, the tribunal in the impugned order dated 23/1/1996 made in OA No. 1565 of 1991 directed the petitioner to do as under:

(3.) It is contended for the petitioners that the intention of the government was that such of the candidates who have been in the department but secured higher ranking should be adjusted in the existing vacancies in the order of merit. If candidates do not come up in the merit, they have to be adjusted in other departments. Since the respondent had secured 295th rank as against others who were also similarly selected as reserved candidates, the respondent cannot get adjusted and appointed in CPWD. We find no force in the contention. It is true that as per list-Annexure III his name was downgraded as against others whose names found place at Serial No. 259 and thereafter. But the reading of the list would indicate that the candidate who secured higher merit position than the respondent had been allotted in the order of merit to CPWD. In that behalf they relied upon the Rule as amended in 1990 and sought to support the action taken thereunder. The tribunal has rightly found that as on the date Rule 15 of the Rules was in vogue which envisages that when the recruitment comes to be made and candidate is duly selected, he should be appointed and adjusted also in the vacancies existing in the department in which he had worked. It clearly indicates that the candidates working in the respective departments are first required to be adjusted unless there is no vacancy existing or they are found medically unfit to hold that post. In that event, they are required to be adjusted in other departments. The subsequent amendment does not have any effect of taking away his right to be adjusted when the Rule was in vogue. The tribunal was, therefore, right in giving direction as indicated above.