HOSIYAR SINGH GHANGHAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involve a common question as to validity of multiple applications made by the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise, Income-tax etc. 1996. An advertisement appeared in the Employment News regarding the 1996 examination for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Income-tax etc. in November/December, 1995. The petitioners made applications in response to the said advertisement. It is common case of the petitioners in all the. writ petitions except Civil Writ Petition No. 3350/ 97, that the petitioners made multiple applications because the examination was to be held throughout the country and for this purpose the country was divided into various zones. According to the case of the petitioners the examination was to be conducted zone-wise and, therefore, they were entitled to apply in each zone. The prospectsofemploymentineachzoneweredifferenfcTheresultof the examination was to be prepared on an all-India basis. It was to depend on vacancies available at the relevant time in ead^zone. The petitioners justified multiple applications on the ground that this enabled them to take the examination in the particular zone where they could consider bestprospects for them to get recruitment depending on the number of vacancies. Making multiple applications gave them the option to select the zone where they would like to take the examination.

(2.) . On behalf of respondents it is submitted thata candidate could take only one examination. He could select any one of zones for this purpose. The advantage of multipleapplicationwasonly thatat the final stagejust before theexamination, the number of vacancies available in each zone would become known and a candidate could decide the zone in which he would consider his prospects for getting employment as best. Though each petitioner had taken the examination on at one centre only, his/her candidature was cancelled by the respondents on the ground of multiple applications having been made for purpose of appearing in the examination. Thepetitionerschallengedthedecisionoftherespondentsincancelling their candidature before the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal. The Tri bunal, however, rejected the challenge. The petitioners have now challenged the decision of the Tribunal in the present batch of writ petitions.

(3.) . During the course of hearing of the petitions, it has been brought to our notice that the Supreme Court has vide its judgment dated 9th December, 1996 in Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. v. Union of India struck down the Scheme of holding the examination in question in the manner in which the respondents used to hold it. For the future directions have been issued to hold the satee On all-India bash.. It is admitted that the directions contained in the said judgment are prospective and do not upset the 1996 examination.