SHRI PRATAP SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

"' 
SHRI PRATAP SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Civil Seivices Examination Rules-Rule 17 second proviso. 
c 
Central Services Group 'A '-Appointment to--Candidate appointed on 
basis of earlier Civil Services Examination-Before declaration of result of 
subsequent examination-Although he did not decline to accept same-How-
ever, on basis of subsequent examination such a candidate allocated to a 
better Central Service Group 'A '-Accordingly candidate reported to Academy 
for Foundation Course-Bar under second proviso to R.17-Applicability D 
of-Held : not applicable to a candidate to whom appointment on basis of 
earlier examination offered to a Central Services Group 'A' post after being 
,, 
allocated to a better Central Se1vices Group 'A' post on basis of subsequelll 
examination and who joined Academy pursuant thereto-Mere fact that 
before declaration of result of subsequent examination he was infonned of E 
being considered for appointment to a Group 'A' Seivice on basis of earlier 
examination and he did not decline to accept same, immateriaf-Appointing 
' 
authority directed to consider candidate for final allocation to Central Services 
Group 'A' post on basis of subsequent examination. 
• 
Central Services Group 'A '-Appointment to-Rules 4 and 17-lnter-
F 
connection between-Held: Second proviso to R.4 and two provisos to R.17 
along with other relevant provisions made in iJ:ltegrated scheme as regards 
eligibility and appointment to a Service-Hence, R.17 could not operate 
independently of R.4. 
The appellant appeared at the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in G 
the year 1989 but was not recommended for any appointment. He, there· 
,, 
fore, appeared at the CSE 1990. After the end of the Preliminary and Main 
Examinations, in January 1991 he was informed that his name was recom· 
mended through a supplementary list for being considered for appoint· 
ment to the Central Services, Group 'A'/Group 'B'. The appellant did not H 
11 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A respond to this offer. Then in July 1991 he was offered an appointment as 
Assistant Commandant in the CISF. This time also he remained silent. On 
.,. 
the basis of his rank in the merit list of the 1990 Examination he was 
allocated to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) out of the Group 'A' Services. 
Accordingly, he reported at the SVPNP Academy for the foundational 
B course meant for IRS probationers. Thereafter, he was informed that on 
the basis of the 1989 Examination, he was allocated to the CISF and was 
directed to report for basic training for that service. He was further 
informed that in view of the provisions contained in the second proviso to 
Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules he was not eligible for 
allocation to Group 'A' Service on the basis of the 1990 Examination and 
c was, therefore, not so allocated. The appellant filed an application before 
the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging his aforesaid allocation 
to CISF which was dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the 
present appeal. 
D 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the first proviso to 
Rule 17 of the Rules could not operate independently of Rule 4 of the Rules; 
that the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules did not apply to the 
appellant; and that the appellant was not a candidate who had been 
'. 
approved for appointment as contemplated by Rule 17 of the Rules. 
,E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The provisos to both the Rules 4 and 17 of the civil 
•• 
Services Examination Rules deal with the case of a candidate who after 
appearing at the earlier examination has again appeared at the next 
F examination to compete for a higher and better service. Thus, the second 
• 
proviso to Rule 4 and the two provisos to Rule 17 are not only inter-con· 
nected but along with other relevant provisions make an integrated scheme 
as regards the eligibility of such a candidate for allocation and appoint-
ment to a service. Whereas the second proviso to Rule 4 specifically makes 
G 
the eligibility therennder subject to the provisions of Rule 17 also the 
provisos to Rule 17 do not specifically refer to the first proviso to Rule 4 
but the moment a candidate appears at the next examination the restric-
lion contained in the first proviso to Rule 4 becomes applicable to him 
and, therefore, the provisos to Rule 17 cannot hav

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