UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SUDHIR KUMAR JAISWAL

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 04-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
SUDHIR KUMAR JAISWAL 
MAY 4, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : Civil Services Examination for appointment to IAS, IFS 
etc.-<:ut of date of determining age limit [u:ed as on !st August of the relevant 
yeQl'-ffeld : not arbitrary. 
Executive instruction cannot override statutory provision. 
Practice and Procedure-<:ontrary decisions by same Bench of Tribunal 
-£artier decision based on apex couTt's judgment-Reference to larger Bench 
called fol"-Refusal to do so not justified. 
The minimum and maximum age for the purpose of eligibility to take 
up the Civil Services Examination conducted by Union Public Service 
Commission was to be determined as on 1st of August of the year in which 
the examination was conducted. This cut off date was fixed when only one 
written examination used to be conducted after 1st August. Even after the 
E 
introduction of Preliminary Examination which is normally held before 1st 
August, the cut off date continued to be 1st August. 
The cut off date was challenged before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal and the Tribunal held it to be arbitrary, though the same 
F 
Tribunal upheld the cut off date in its earlier decision. Against this 
decision, the Union of India and UPSC have come in appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is settled law that no administrative authority has 
G absolute discretion to decide a matter within its competence the way it 
chooses. (889-D] 
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. (1978) SC 591 and United 
States v. Wunderlich, (1951] 342 US 98, referred to. 
H 
2. Insofar as fixation of cut off date is concerned, the same can be 
886 
> 
U.0.I. v. S.K. JAISW AL 
887 
\ 
regarded as arbitrary by a Court if the same be one about which it can be A 
~ 
said that it has been "picked out from a hat". [K89-F) 
Dr. Nim v. CS. Prasad, A.l.R.(1967) S.C. 1301, relied on. 
3. It cannot be held that continuation of treating 1st August as the 
cut off date, despite the Union Public Service Commission having intro-
B 
duced the method of Preliminary examination which is normally held 
before first August, can be said to be "very wide of any reasonable mark" 
or so capricious or whimsical as to permit judicial interference. (891 ·B) 
Union of India v. Panneswaran Match Works, A.1.R. (1974) S.C. 2349; c 
D.G.Gouse and Co. v. State of Kera/a, (1980) A.l.R. S.C. 271 and State of 
Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, [1990) 3 S.C.C. 368, relied on. 
Louisville Gas & E.Co. v. Coleman, (1927) 277 US 32, Metropolic 
171eatre Co. v. City of Chicago, [1912) 57 L Ed 730 and Sushma Shamia v. 
State of Rajasthan, A.l.R. (1986) SC 1367, referred to. 
D 
4. What is stated in the ollice Memorandum issued by the Govern· 
• 
ment of India un 4.9.1979, which is executive in nature, cannot override the 
statutory provisions finding place either in Regulation 4(b)(ii) of !AS 
(Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regul_ations, 1955 or Rule E 
6(a) of Civil Services Examination Rules, 1992. This is so elementary a 
point that an adjudicatory body like the CAT could not have, in any case 
, 
was not expected to have, made the mistake of relying on the same as it 
runs couµter to the 
aforesaid statutory provisions. Moreover, the 
aforesaid Office Memorandum came to be explained by another Office 
• 
Memorandum of 14.7.88, which has made it clear that insof3r as civil 
F 
.. 
service examinations are concerned, it is the latter date which is crucial in 
~ 
between two dates, namely, 1st January and 1st August. So, no reliance 
could have been placed on what had been stated in this regard in the Office 
Memorandum of 4.9.79. (891·0-E) 
5. The Bench of CAT ought to have referred the matter to a larger G 
Bench because of two decision of that Bench itself taking a different view; 
more so, as it was deciding a point relating to conduct of examination by 
an important body like Union Public Service Commission and that also 
for examinations conducted for selecting IAS and IFS Officers. The refer~ 
ence to larger Bench was eminently called for because the earlier decisions H 
888 
SUP.REME COURT REPORTS 
r1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of the Tribunal were based on the judgment of this Court in Ramjee 
Prasad's case in which the reasonableness of cut off date examined, related 
to filling up posts, as in the present case. [892-B-C] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, [1992] Supp. 1 S.C.C. 594, 
distinguished. 
State o

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