1. Civil servant qualifying for another service through competitive examination without resigning from current post as required by service rules. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 777
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
A. SUBBAIH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA.
Civil Appeal No. 5013 of 1993 {Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10648 of 1993}
Decided on 10-9-1993
Important Points
The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the appellant's high merit, in determining the eligibility for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service.
Subject
Civil Services Examination Rules - Appointment and Eligibility
Act Referred
Civil Services Examination Rules, 1986: R.4
Headnote
Indian Revenue Service - Civil Services Examination - Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1986 provides that a candidate must resign from the service to which he is already appointed before taking the examination. The appellant, who was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service, did not resign before taking the Indian Civil Services Examination in 1991. However, the court held that considering the appellant's high merit and the circumstances of the case, he should be given the benefit of the examination and allowed to join the Indian Administrative Service.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, appointed to the Indian Revenue Service, took the Indian Civil Services Examination in 1991 without resigning from his current service. The respondents relied on Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1986 to deny the appellant's appointment to the Indian Administrative Service.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to declare the result and consequent merit of the appellant in respect of the Indian Civil Services Examination, 1991. The appellant was entitled to the appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1991 batch as a result of the examination.
Issues: The main issue was the application of Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1986 and its impact on the appellant's eligibility for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that despite the technical non-compliance with Rule 4, considering the appellant's high merit and the circumstances of the case, he should be given the benefit of the examination and allowed to join the Indian Administrative Service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted the appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1991 batch.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-compliance with the rule requiring resignation from current service before taking a competitive examination precludes appointment to the newly selected service. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that since the candidate sat for the exam under court directions and others were similarly treated, denying appointment would be unjust. (Para 3 )
4. Equity and the principle of non-discrimination justify granting appointment to a candidate who sat for an exam under court directions, despite non-compliance with resignation rules. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside; respondents directed to declare the result and appoint the appellant to the selected service. (Para 4 )
6. Is the requirement for a candidate to resign from their current service before taking the Civil Services Examination legally valid?
Yes, the validity of the rule requiring a candidate to resign from their existing service before taking the examination has been upheld by the court. (Para 3 )
7. Under what circumstances can a candidate be granted appointment despite failing to resign from their current service as required by rules?
Appointment may be granted if the candidate sat for the examination under court directions and other similarly situated candidates who did not resign were previously given the benefit of their selection. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The appellant was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service on the basis of the Civil Services Examination held in the year 1989. While in service he took the Indian Civil Services Examination again in the year 1991. He sat in the said examination under the interim orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and also of this Court. It is not disputed that the appellant has qualified for the Indian Administrative Service and has achieved very high merit being at No. 29 of the merit list. The appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe.
3. Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1986 (the Rules) provides that a candidate, taking the examination, must resign from the service to which he is already appointed. The vires of this rule has been upheld by this Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India {1992 Supp (1) SCC 594}. Since the appellant did not resign from the Indian Revenue Service before taking the Indian Civil Services Examination, 1991 the respondents, taking shelter behind Rule 4 of the Rules, are not permitting the appellant to join the Indian Administrative Service to which he has been selected. Technically no fault can be found with the stand taken by the respondents. We are, however, of the view that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case specially that the appellant sat in the 1991 examination under the directions of this Court he should be given the benefit of the said examination. It is not disputed before us that several candidates similarly situated who sat in the Indian Civil Services Examinations during the period 1986-90 without resigning their jobs were given the benefit of their selection. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the fruit of his selection to the Indian Administrative Service.
4. We set aside the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and direct the respondents to declare the result and consequent merit of the appellant in respect of the Indian Civil Services Examination, 1991. He shall be entitled to the appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1991 batch as a result of the above-said examination. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
For Citation: 1995 Supp(1) SCC 210
