MADHUKAR SINHA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 13-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAOHU~! SINHA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND 
ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 
1991 
B 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M~ FATHIMA BEEVI AND 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) 
Service Law : Civil SeTVices Examination, 199<>-Seniority of success-
ful candidates-Directions by the Court. 
C 
The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Patna Bench, for a declaration that the second proviso to rule 4 
of Civil Services Examination Rules ~ 
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of 
the Constitution of India. By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the 
appellant to appear at the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990, 
D subject to the result of the final orders in the original application. The 
said application was transferred to this Court. 
lo a bunch of similar cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
Delhi upheld the validity of Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules. In 
appeal to this Court (Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90)** by an interim order 
E dated 7.12.1990, the appellants therein were allowed to appear in Civil 
Services (Main) Examination, 1990; and while finally disposing of the 
appeals, thejudgment of CAT, Delhi was affirmed. 
F 
Dismissing the case of the appellant in view of the judgment in C.As 
Nos. 5439-52/90,** this Court, 
HELD: The appellant wail also entitled to the same benefits as 
granted to the appellants in Civil Appeals No. 5439-52/90, namely : 
(i) All those candidates who appeared for the Civil Services. (Main) 
G Examination, 1990, pursuant to this Court's order dated 7.12.90 and 
qualified themselves for the interview, shall be permitted ~o appear for the 
interview test and that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily 
qualify themselves by getting through the written examinations as well as 
the interview shall be given proper allocation and appointment on the 
basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction 
H imposed by the second proviso to rule 4 and this Court's judgment 
112 
l 
-I 
MADHUKAR 
v. 
U.O.I. 
[ PANl>IAN, J.] 
113 
. upholding the validity of the said proviso since the respondents have not A 
.J..., 
. questioned and challenged the directions given by C.A. T,, Principal Bench, 
Delhi in its judgment dated 20.8.1990. 
(ii) The on-challenged directions give~ by the C.A. T. in its 
judgment as well as directions . given by this Coul1 in its order dated B 
7.12.90 were not controlled by any rider in the sense that the said 
directions were subject to the result of the cases and hence those directions 
would be confmed only to those candidates who appeared for C.S.E. 1990 
and no further. The seniority of those successful candidates in C.S.E.1990 
would depend on the service to which they have qualified. The seniority of 
the left out candidates would be maintained in case they have joined the C 
service to which they have been allocated on ill~ result of previous C.S.E. 
and such candidates will not be subjected t41· suffer loss of seniority as 
held by the C. A. T. Delhi in its judgment. [pp ~14 H, 115A-D] 
**Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India, [1991] Supp.1 D 
SCR46 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case No. 2 of 
1991. 
(Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution oflndia) 
Salman Khurshid, Madhan Panikkar, M~s: Vimla-Sinha and Gopal 
Singh for the Appellant. 
Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley, Additional Solicitor Generals, Ms. 
Kamini Jaiswal and C.V.S. Rao for the Respon9ents. 
' ' The Judgment ·of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The above case has been registered in 
pursuance of our order dated 23.11.90 in Transfer Petition (Civil) 
No.546/90 transferring O.A.No.191 of 1990 uqder Article 139 (A) of the 
Constitution of India from the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, G 
Pat~a Bench, Patna. The appellant's prayer is to dispose of the.above case 
+ 
along with Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-52/90 (arising out of SLP (Civil).Nos. 
13525-38 of 1990). The relief sought for by the appellant before the CAT, 
Patna Bench was similar to the one before the CAT, Principal Bench, 
Delhi that being to declare the second provi,so, to Rule 4 of C.S.E. as 
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution' of India. On 29.8.90 the H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R 
A Patna Bench in M.P. No. 36/90 granted an interim relief which reads thus: 
B 
"Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant 
may be allowed to appear at the Civil Services Main Examina-
tion, 1990,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.