LexMOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC SEPTEMBER 13, 1991 B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ. ] Civil Services Examination Rules: Rules 4,8 and 17. C Rule 4-Second proviso-Nature, scope and constitutional validity ~ of-Held proviso carves out an exception to Rule 4--lt does not travel --oeyorrd Rule 4-f'roviso held not ultra vires to clause (iii-a) of Regulation 4 of I.A.S (Appointment by competitive Examination) Regulations, ~955--There is dynamic and rational nexus between the proviso and the' object to be achieved-Proviso held applicable to candidates belonging to D Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. E Rule 8-f'urpose of the Rule-Explained. Rule 17--Proviso-Validity of- Proviso held valid. Constitution of /11dia, 1950: Articles 14 and 16--Civil Services-Clas- sification of services-Validity of-Held classification is not based on artifi- cial i11eq1talities. b1tt is founded on substantial differences-Group 'A' and 'B' Services held distinct a11d separate-Classification of group 'A' and 'B' F services held reasonable--Seco11d proviso to Rule 4 of Civil Services Ex- amination R1tles held not ultra vires of Article 14 or Article 16. Part W-A Article 51-A (ii-Fundamental d1tties-Civil Services-- Training Programme of selectees--R.ationale of-Training programme held in consonance with the Article 51-A (j). Interpretation of Statute : Statute-f'rinciples of constmcti01r-Legis- lative i11tenti01r-Ascertainment of--5hould be ascertained by reading the statute as a whole and in the backdrop of dominant purpose- Wizen the language is clear and plain court. should constnte it in the ordinary sense . H and gi~·e effect to it irrespective of consequences-<:onsideration of hardship 46 _..___ I MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I. 47 and inconvenience should be avoided. Section - Rule/proviso to-Nature and scope of-Rule of interpreta- tion <of proViso-Wliat is-Proviso is expected to except or qualify the enact- ing part. A B Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules provide that every candidate appearing at the examination, who is otherwise eligible, shall be permitted three attempts at the examination. (The attempts are now increased to four). Under Proviso to the said Rule the restriction on the number of attempts is not applicable in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible. By a notification C dated 13.12.1986 the Central Executive Authority inserted second proviso to Rule 4. The said second proviso provided that a candidate who on the basis of the results of the previous Civil Services Examination, had been allocated to the l.P.S. or Central Services, Group 'A' but who expressed his intention to appear in the next Civil Services Main Examination for competing for IAS, IFS, IPS or Central Services, Group 'A' and who was permitted to abstain from the probationary training in order to so appear shall be eligible to do so, subject to the provisions of Rule 17 and that the said candidate when allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil Services (Main) Examination can either join that service or the service to which he has already been allocated on the basis of the previous CSE and that if he fails to join either of the services, his allocation based on one or both the examinations, as the case may be, will stand cancelled. Further, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8, a candidate who accepts allocation to a service and is appointed to that service shall not be eligible to appear again in the CSE unless he has first resigned from the service. In other words, a candidate failing within the ambit of this proviso can appear in the CSE for all the permitted attempts subject to his age limit if he intends to appear again in the CSE provided he first resigns from the service which he accepts on allocation and to which he is appointed. Rule 8 of the Civil Services Examination Rules precludes the ca~didate who have been appointed to the IAS, or IFS from sitting in the ensuing examination while in service. The said rule provide that a candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) or the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) on the basis of result of an earlier txamination before the commencement or the ensuing examination and D E F G H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 1 S. C. R A continues to be a member o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.