ARTI K. CHHABRA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 11-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ARTI K. CHHABRA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 1992 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Services-Civil Services Examination Rules, 199o-Rule 17, 
Proviso-<:onstitutional validity of-Candidates selected to JPS, /AS, IFS and 
other Central Services in Group '.A '-Mobility to other Services--R.estric-
tion--Wliether discriminatory. 
The appellants were allocated to Iqdian Ordnance Factory Servic~, 
Indian Defence Accounts Services, and Indian Postal Services respectively 
(Group 'A' Services) on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 1989. They 
c 
did not join the foundation course and probationary training of the said 
Services and with due permission abstained from training thereafter, to D 
improve their position by appearing in the Civil Services· (Main) Examina-
tion, 1990. Though they improved their position in 1990 Examination, they 
were denied their allocation and appointment to Indian Customs/Central 
Excise Services in Group' A' by making application of the first proviso to rule 
17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1990. 
In the present appeal by special leave, the appellants challenged the 
validity of the proviso to rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 
1990 for competitive examination held by the Union Public Service Com-
mission in 1990 for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in various 
Central Civil Services. 
Appellants contended that whereas a candidate who on the basis of 
E 
F 
his previous examination was selected to I.P.S. could move to I.A.S. and 
1.F.S. and any of the Central Services in Group 'A', those who were 
selected for any of the services in Group 'A' like the appellants could n9t 
move to any other service in the same Group but could only move to I.A.S., G 
I.F.S. and I.P.S. that such restriction on the mobility of those who were 
selected to the services in Group 'A' as against those who were selected for 
l.P.S., was discriminatory, and was bad in law. 
The respondents submitted that there was no absolute bar on those 
who were selected for any of the Group 'A' Services on the basis of their H 
511 
. 
. 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992J'SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
previous examination, from moving to other service in the said Group; that 
the only condition was that if they choose to do so, they had to resign first 
from the service; that the restriction was applicable only if the candidate 
concerned wanted to retain the advantage of opting for a service so allocated, 
in case he failed in the next examination; that the second *oviso to rule 17 
enabled a candidate appointed to Group 'B'; Services on: the basis of the 
B earlier examination to get appointment only in l.A.S., 1.F.S. and I.P.S. and 
Group 'A' Services thus permitting only the vertical movement and not 
horizontal movement in the same Group, i.e .. Group ~B'; that if movement 
from one Group 'A' Service to another- Group 'A' Service was allowed, 
vacancies in a large number of services would remain un(illed; that there 
C would also arise a problem of fixing seniority between th~ promotees and 
direct recruits; that there would be a shortage of suitable officers at the 
higher level adversely affecting the efficiency of administration; that the 
movement of candidates from 1.P.S. to Group' A' Services and vice versa were 
permitted from the inception of the examination Scheme; that they were two 
entirely different categories of services and. hence allowin~ tl:.e mobility to 
D I.P.S. category was justified. 
1 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The restriction is eminently justified since, all Services in 
Group 'A' Stand at per with each other. Hence, there is no question of 
E 
bettering prospects or seeking an upward mobilitywhen a c~ndidate wants to 
move from one service in Group 'A' to another service' in that Group. 
Further, if those who are appointed to any of the Group' A' Services which are 
as many as 45, are allowed the mobility, a large number of posts would 
remain unfilled at any particular point of time resulting in a chaos in the 
administration. (521-C] 
F 
G 
' 
1.2. The posts .in l.A.S., I.F.S. and I.P.S. are li~ited in number 
compared to those in Group 'A' services and those selected for the I.A.S., 
l.F.S. and I.P.S. are few. The dislocation on that account is thus marginal, 
if any. (521-D] 
' 
1.3. There is no absolute restriction on a candidate selected to any 
of the services in Group 'A' from moving to any

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.