JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :— After hearing the matter on 6 th November, 1987 we had allowed the appeal and directed reasons to follow. We proceed to state the reasons.

2. The Union of India has carried this appeal against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna. The respondent took the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1983 held on the basis of notification dated 18th December, 1982. The Civil Services Examination is a combined one for several services including Indian Foreign Service, Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service. He in his application form against column 22 which required information about services/posts in order of preference mentioned his preference for Indian Administrative Service only. The results of the examination were published on 25th March, 1984. on the basis of written examination; final results following viva voce test were published on 25th of May, 1984, and the respondent was placed in the 280th position in the final merit list. There is no dispute that on the basis of the position secured by him, he was not entitled to be recruited into the Indian Administrative Service - the service of his choice, On 29th May, 1984, he informed the Public Service Commission as also the Ministry of Home Affairs that he was not aware as to the implications of indicating the preferences for various services and stated :-

"this mistake on my part may please be .condoned and the following order of preference may kindly be accepted

(1) Indian Administrative Service,

(2) Indian Police Service,

(3) Indian Customs & Central Excise Service Group A,

(4) Indian Income-tax Service Group A.

(5) Indian Railway Traffic Service Group A

The respondent was intimated on 14th August. 1984, by the Central Government that he was being considered for appointment to the Indain Police Service - a Central Service Group A- subject to the availabilty of vacancies in those services, taking into account his ranking in the merit list and preference for services. He was advised to proceed for the Foundational Course training at Missoorie in case he was willing to be considered for appointment as indicated. The respondent did not join the training course but sat for the Civil Services Examination of 1984 but was not successful for the Indian Administrative Service or the Indian Police Service. In February, 1985, the respondent received an offer of appointment on the basis of the 1983 examination to the Central Information Service, Group A. Thereupon he represented his claim and maintained that he was entitled for appointment to the Indian Police Service in consideration of the fact that the last person offered such service had ranked 291 in the merit list of 1983. The respondent was communicated an order of 14th April, 1986, rejecting his request. The Central Administrative Tribunal was moved for quashing of the order and for a direction to the Central Government to give the respondent appointment to the Indian Police Service cadre.

3. The Tribunal examined the claim with reference to the rules. the form of application and its contents as also the practice obtaining in the matter of making appointments to the services and held that the Central Government had the duty and obligation to consider the claim of the respondent for appointment to the Indain Police Service even if he had not indicated his option and the ground of undue hardship had to be considered by the Central Government. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a somewhat similarly placed situation and the Tribunal directed the Central Government to consider the claim of the respondent for appointment to the Indian Police Service. This direction on special leave is assailed in this appeal.

4. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Ramamurthy for the respondent. There is no dispute that it is open to a candidate to compete for one