The judgment emphasized the need to abolish inequality and adopt positive measures to ensure equal treatment, as mandated by the provisions of Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) AN Order of Central Administrative Tribunal ( hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) passed against the petitioner herein, who was not a party in the Original application filed by the petitioner against the Delhi Administration, declaring rule 16 (vii) of the Combined Engineering Services Examination, 1992 as unconstitutional, is the subject matter of the writ petitions.

( 2 ) AS per the rules published by the respondent No. 2 in Gazette of India dated 15. 02. 1992, the candidates are allotted to various Ministries/departments taking into account their rank, preference, category and vacancies. The respondent No. 1, who is a general candidate, had appeared in Civil Engineering stream Exam had given preferences for five services only viz. 1rse, IRSS, CWES, CES, SIS-A out of a total 12 services. The respondent No. 1 had secured 137th rank in 1992 Exam. Since her rank was lower than that of the candidates allotted to the aforesaid five services, she could not be allotted to the Department for which she had given preferences.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the examinations were held for combined Civil services. The petitioner ranked 137th in 1992 Exam, and 201 persons had been taken in service. The petitioner had opted for five services and having regard to the rank obtained by her, she could not be accommodated in other services, she could be accommodated only in Border Roads Development Board ( hereinafter referred to as the Board ).

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the aforementioned rule, she was denied appointment. Although persons who were below her in the select list had been appointed. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner did not implead the Board.

( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal by an elaborate judgment held negatively by reason of the extension of the provisions of Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 6 ) MS. Rekha Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of india, contended that the impugned rule must not be held to be ultra vires, the respondents right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution had been violated.

( 7 ) THE review application filed by the respondent had been denied. The board without seeking leave of this Court has filed a writ petition, which was marked as c. W. P. No. 127 of 1999; a writ petition has also been filed by the Union of India through railway Administration, although at the time of hearing, nobody had appeared to support the same.

( 8 ) MS. Rekha Palli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in C. W. P. No. 4246 of 1999 would submit that the rules could not have been ultra vires.

( 9 ) IN view of the fact that in certain categories of service, ladies can be prohibited in particular Section 12 of the Act had been applied therein.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel would contend that the services in the Board would come under the Statute Central Civil Services and thus the impugned order could not have been passed.

( 11 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter having regard to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In any event, the learned counsel in support of the said contention has strongly relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in R. Viswan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1983 (3) SCR 60 and an unreported decision in SLP (Civil) No. 8096 of 1995 disposed of on 09. 01. 1998 titled union of India v. Smt. Vidyawati .

( 12 ) THE learned counsel would contend that, in any event, the said question ought to have been decided in absence of the petitioner.

( 13 ) MR. K. N. R. Pillai. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the Border Road Engineering Services is also a Central Civil Services. According to the learned counsel that the impugned instruction is not statutory rule and by reason of such instructions, the fundamental right of the resp