Judgment

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.- The above batch of Civil Appeals in which common questions of law arise, is preferred, by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgments dated 20-8-1990, 4-10-1990.and 5-10-1990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) rendered in various affiliated groups of original applications (O.As) upholding the validity of the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules (hereinafter referred to as C.S.E. Rules) introduced by Notification Number 13016/4/86-AIS(I) dated 13-12-1986 (Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part I Section 1). Be it noted that similar notification has been/is being issued each year for the general information of the candidates setting down the terms and conditions, eligibility etc. to sit for the Civil Service Examination of the concerned year.

2. While a substantial number of O.As filed before the Tribunal at Delhi were pending, a similar number of analogous O.As filed before the Benches of Administrative Tribunals at Patna, Allahabad, Chandigarh, Jabalpur, Hyderabad, Jodhpur and Eranakulam were transferred to the Tribunal at Delhi since common questions of law arose for determination in all the O.As.

3. The Tribunal rendered its main judgment in O.A. No. 206/89 Alok Kumar v. Union of India, and 61 other 0 As. in which the facts appear to be common. The other judgments were passed on the basis of the conclusions arrived in O.A. No. 206/89 and the connected batch of O.As. Since the Tribunal has set out only the facts in the case of Alok Kumar (O. A. No. 206/ 89) treating it as a main application and illustrative of the questions raised, we would like to briefly indicate the facts of Alok Kumars case so that the impelling circumstances which led to the filing of these appeals and the common questions of law involved may be understood in the proper perspective in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal.

4. In this context, it may be noted that though no appeal has been filed against the order in 0. A. No. 206/89, we are given to understand that Alok Kumar who agitated his similar claim along with two others who were all allocated to Group A Services (I.R. P.S.) in O.A. No. 1071/1990 has preferred Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 1990 against the judgment in the said O.A. No. 1071 of 1990.

5.. Shri Alok Kumar filed his application in December 1986 to sit for the preliminary examination in 1987. The preliminary examination was held by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSCfor short) in June 1987 and the result was declared in July 1987. The C.S.E. (Main) Examination was held by the UPSC in November 1987. The interviews took place in April, 1988 and the final results were declared by the UPSC in June, 1988. The applicant, Alok Kumar was selected for appointment to Central Service Group A post. A communication to this effect was sent to him on 30-8-88 in which Alok Kumars attention was drawn to Rule 4 of the C. S. E. Rules 1987 pointing out that if he intended to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination in 1988 he would not be allowed to join the Probationary Training along with the candidates of 1987 group but would only be allowed to join the Probationary Training along with the candidates who would be appointed on the basis of the CSE 1988. The said letter also indicated that in the matter of seniority, he would be placed below all the candidates who would join training without postponement. Therefore, he was required to furnish the information about his appearing in the CSE (Main) 1988 to the concerned cadre controlling authorities. He was further informed that only on receipt of the above information, the concerned cadre controlling authority would permit him to abstain from the Probationary Training. The Joint Director, Estt. G (R), Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) informed Alok Kumar about his selection for appointment to the Indian Railway Per