UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI PARMANAND

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 19-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI PARMANAND 
AUGUST 19, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.) 
Combined Services Examination Rules, 1989 : Rule 15 (As it stood 
before its amendment in 1990). 
A 
B 
Service Law-Selection-Allocation of Department-Respondent ap-
C 
pointed as Junior Engineer in C.P. W.D.-Later selected as Assistant Engineer 
by UP.S.C.-Service Rule in vogue providing that selected candidate be 
appointed and adjusted agai11st existi11g vacancies in the Department in which 
he was working-Direction give11 by Tribunal to consider absorption of 
responde11t in CPWD held right-Held amendment of rule does not take away 
candidate's right under the unamended rule. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 18256 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Delhi in 0.A. No. 1565 of 1991. 
E 
P .P. Malhotra, A.S. Bhasme and Arvind Kr. Sharma for the 
Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in CPWD on 
the basis of result of the competitive examinations held by the Director 
General (Works) on March 1, 1977. Later, as a result of the recruitment 
F 
by the U.P.S.C. in the year 1982, the respondent was selected as Assistant 
Engineer and was appointed in that capacity by the Director General G 
(Works), CPWD by proceedings dated July 14, 1987. The question arose : 
whether he would be entitled to be absorbed in the C.P.W.D. where he, 
admittedly, has worked for 18 years or be allotted to other department. 
The respondent has relied upon Rule 15 of the Rules of the Combined 
Service Examination Rules, 1989 (for short, the "Rules") which reads as 
follows: 
H 
751 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
"Departmental candidates will, however be first considered for 
appointment to service/posts in their own department and only in 
the event of non-availability of vacancies therein or medical un-
fitness of such candidates for the services/posts under their own 
departments, they shall be considered for allotment to the ser-
vices/posts 
in other Ministries/Departments on the basis of 
preferences expressed by them." 
Relying upon that Rule, the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 
January 23, 1996 made in O.A. No. 1565 of 1991 directed the petitioner to 
do as under: 
"These four candidates were Sarvshri Prakash Rawat, A.K. Das, 
Mathura Prasad and Ravi Amrohi Learned counsel for the ap-
plicant has made a statement before us that the last named can-
didate, Shri Ravi Amrohi, whose rank was 258 left the department 
even though he had initially accepted the offer of appointment. If 
that be the position, then it would be possible to adjust the 
applicant against his vacancy. Accordingly, the respondents are 
directed to adjust the applicant against the vacancy of Shri Ravi 
Amrohi and in case Shri Ravi Amrohi is still in service then they 
should adjust the applicant against the next available vacancy with 
all consequential benefits as regards seniority. The appeal is ac-
cordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs." 
It is contended for the petitioners that the intention of the Govern-
ment was that such of the candidates who have been in the department but 
F 
secured higher ranking should be adjusted in the existing vacancies in the 
order of merit. If candidates do not come up in the merit, they have to be 
adjusted in other departments. Since the respondent had secured 295th 
rank as against others who were also similarly selected as reserved can-
didates, the respondent cannot get adjusted and appointed in CPWD. We 
find no force in the contention. It is true that as per list-annexure Ill his 
G name was downgraded as against others whose names found place at SL 
Nos. 259 and thereafter. But the reading of the list would indicate that the 
candidate who secured higher merit position than the respondent had been 
allotted in the order of merit to CPWD. In that behalf they relied upon the 
rule as amended in 1990 and sought to support the action taken there-
H 
under. The Tribunal has rightly found that as on the date Rule 15 of the 
•' 
' 
U.0.J. v. PARMANAND 
753 
Rules was in vogue which envisages that when the recruitment comes to be A 
made and candidate is duly selected, he should be appointed and adjusted 
also in the vacancies existing in the department in which he had worked. 
It clearly indicates that the candidat

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