Back
2011 (8) Supreme 148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Sec., U.P.S.C. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
S. Krishna Chaitanya — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6349 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. ) No.11779 of 2011)
with
Interlocutory Application No.1
Decided on : 5-8-2011
Interim Order- Respondent, being desirous of taking Civil Services Examination, 2010 filled up his application form and had sent the same to UPSC through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. - As the respondent not received any acknowledgement card ,he filed an application praying inter alia for an interim relief to the effect that the appellants be directed to furnish an admission certificate to him-Order passed by Tribunal directing appellants to issue an admission certificate to the respondent so that the respondent could take the examination-Writ petition-Disposed off by High Court by observing that the respondent be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains)-Appeal- Instantly, respondent not only took the preliminary examination but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by virtue of interim orders though he had no right to take any of examinations- Grant of such interim orders should be avoided as they not only increase work of the institution which conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates approaching court- If the respondent did not receive any acknowledgment for a period of 30 days from the date on which he had forwarded his application form, he ought to have made necessary enquiry in the office of the appellants.- No vigilant student aspiring to become a responsible officer of the State would remain so indifferent so as not to make any enquiry for more than two months- Thus, respondent himself was only to be blamed for events- Appellants could not be directed to declare final result of respondent, especially when his application form had not been received by appellants within the period prescribed-Impugned judgment delivered by High Court as well as order of Tribunal set aside- Appeal allowed (Paras 19 to 28)
Facts of the Case :
Respondent, herein in the instant case being desirous of taking Civil Services Examination, 2010 filled up his application form and had sent the same to UPSC through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. As the respondent not received any acknowledgement card ,he filed an application praying inter alia for an interim relief to the effect that the appellants be directed to furnish an admission certificate to him. An Order was passed by Tribunal directing appellants to issue an admission certificate to the respondent so that the respondent could take the preliminary examination. Writ petition thereagainst by appellants was Disposed of by High Court by observing that respondent be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains).
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly, respondent not only took the preliminary examination but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by virtue of interim orders though he had no right to take any of examinations. Grant of such interim orders should be avoided as they not only increase work of the institution which conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates approaching court. If the respondent did not receive any acknowledgment for a period of 30 days from the date on which he had forwarded his application form, he ought to have made necessary enquiry in the office of the appellants. No vigilant student aspiring to become a responsible officer of the State would remain so indifferent so as not to make any enquiry for more than two months. Thus, respondent himself was only to be blamed for events. Appellants could not be directed to declare final result of respondent, especially when his application form had not been received by appellants within the period prescribed. Impugned judgment delivered by High Court as well as order of Tribunal was set aside- Appeal was allowed
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
An interim order should not be of such a nature that it effectively grants final relief at an interim stage, as this can lead to unjust outcomes and procedural irregularities (!) .
Courts tend to be more sympathetic to students, often directing authorities to permit examinations without fully verifying the candidate's right to participate. However, such interim orders should be finalised on merits before declaring results, to avoid setting wrong precedents and unnecessary administrative burdens (!) .
In this case, the respondent appeared for the preliminary, main, and interview stages of the examination based on interim orders, despite not having a confirmed right to do so, which is generally discouraged (!) .
The conduct of the respondent in delaying enquiry about his application status and not following up within the prescribed timeframe was considered negligent. The respondent was expected to act diligently, especially since he had prior experience with the process (!) (!) .
The system maintained by the authorities for receipt and acknowledgment of applications is comprehensive and relies on proper documentation and record-keeping, including acknowledgment cards with distinct numerical marks. The absence of such acknowledgment or proof of receipt for the respondent's application indicates that the application was likely not received by the authorities (!) (!) .
The record shows no conclusive evidence that the respondent’s application form was received by the authorities, and even the tribunal expressed uncertainty about receipt, indicating that the application may have been misplaced or not delivered (!) (!) .
The authorities' procedures for handling applications, including acknowledgment and record-keeping, are designed to prevent fraud and ensure accountability. The absence of acknowledgment in this case suggests the application was not processed by the authorities (!) (!) .
Given the lack of proof that the application was received, and considering the respondent's delay in following up, the court found no justification to direct the authorities to declare the respondent's result or permit participation in subsequent examination stages (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that interim reliefs should not lead to final outcomes unless fully justified, and that granting such relief without proof of receipt undermines procedural integrity (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the tribunal and high court were set aside, reaffirming the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules and the necessity of proof of application receipt before granting participation rights in examinations (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.2001 passed in W.P. No.33367 of 2010 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, confirming the Order dated 1st September, 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, this appeal has been filed by the appellants - the Secretary and the Joint Secretary of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
3. According to the case of the respondent, being desirous of taking Civil Services Examination, 2010, he had filled up his application form and had sent the same to UPSC through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. The respondent had handed over his application form to the above named courier on 28th January, 2010, and the courier had intimated to the respondent that the application form was delivered to UPSC on 29th January, 2010. Thus, according to the respondent, his application form had been duly received by UPSC and, therefore, he was expecting his admission certificate but as he had not received it even in the month of April, 2010, he had made a representation to the appellants on 20th April, 2010, making a grievance with regard to non-issuance of admission certificate to him. In pursuance of the aforestated representation made by the respondent, a letter dated 23rd April, 2010, was addressed to the respondent whereby he was informed that his application for Civil Services Examination (Preliminary), 2010 had not been received by the appellants and the respondent was also requested to furnish acknowledgment card duly stamped by UPSC to enable the appellants to take further action in the matter.
4. As the respondent had not received any acknowledgement card from the appellants, the respondent rushed to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A. No.470 of 2010 praying inter alia for an interim relief to the effect that the appellants be directed to furnish an admission certificate to the respondent so that the respondent can take the examination. By an interim order dated 12th May, 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent to submit a copy of his application form to the appellants and directed the appellants to issue an admission certificate to the respondent so that the respondent can take the examination. It was clarified that the admission certificate would be subject to the final result of the said original application.
5. In pursuance of the aforestated interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the respondent had filed another application form which was received by the appellants around 17th May, 2010 and in pursuance of the said application form, an admission certificate was issued to the respondent and he took the Civil Services Examination (Preliminary).
6. The aforestated original application was finally heard by the CAT and by an Order dated 1st September, 2010, the application was allowed, whereby the appellants were directed to declare result of the respondent and if he was found qualified, he should be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains), 2010. While allowing the application, the Tribunal had considered reply filed on behalf of the appellants. It was stated in the reply filed on behalf of the appellants that no application form from the respondent was received by the appellants. The respondent had specifically stated that his application form bearing No.37573985 had been submitted through the courier named hereinabove to the appellants on 29th January, 2010 at 4 p.m. The respondent had mainly relied upon an acknowledgement given to him by the courier to the effect that his application form had been delivered to the appellants on 29th January, 2010 at 4 p.m. and an affidavit had also been filed in support of the said averment by Shri V.S. Kumar Raju, Manager, Administration, Regional Office of DTDC, Hyderabad. The aforestated averments of the respondent were specifically denied by the deponent of an a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
