# MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1991] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 46
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1991-09-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-52of1990
- **Bench:** S. Ratnavel Pandian, M. Fathima Beevi, K. Ja Yachandra Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohan-kumar-singhania-and-ors-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-11258
- **Pages:** 66

## Headnote

Civil Services Examination Rules: Rules 4,8 and 17.
C
Rule 4-Second proviso-Nature, scope and constitutional validity
~
of-Held proviso carves out an exception to Rule 4--lt does not travel
--oeyorrd Rule 4-f'roviso held not ultra vires to clause (iii-a) of Regulation
4 of I.A.S (Appointment by competitive Examination) Regulations,
~955--There is dynamic and rational nexus between the proviso and the'
object to be achieved-Proviso held applicable to candidates belonging to
D Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
E
Rule 8-f'urpose of the Rule-Explained.
Rule 17--Proviso-Validity of- Proviso held valid.
Constitution of /11dia, 1950: Articles 14 and 16--Civil Services-Classification of services-Validity of-Held classification is not based on artificial i11eq1talities. b1tt is founded on substantial differences-Group 'A' and
'B' Services held distinct a11d separate-Classification of group 'A' and 'B'
F
services held reasonable--Seco11d proviso to Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination R1tles held not ultra vires of Article 14 or Article 16.
Part W-A Article 51-A (ii-Fundamental d1tties-Civil Services--
Training Programme of selectees--R.ationale of-Training programme held
in consonance with the Article 51-A (j).
Interpretation of Statute : Statute-f'rinciples of constmcti01r-Legislative i11tenti01r-Ascertainment of--5hould be ascertained by reading the
statute as a whole and in the backdrop of dominant purpose- Wizen the
language is clear and plain court. should constnte it in the ordinary sense .
H and gi~·e effect to it irrespective of consequences-<:onsideration of hardship
46
_..___
I
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I.
47
and inconvenience should be avoided.
Section - Rule/proviso to-Nature and scope of-Rule of interpretation <of proViso-Wliat is-Proviso is expected to except or qualify the enacting part.
A
B
Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules provide that every
candidate appearing at the examination, who is otherwise eligible, shall be
permitted three attempts at the examination. (The attempts are now
increased to four). Under Proviso to the said Rule the restriction on the
number of attempts is not applicable in the case of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible. By a notification C
dated 13.12.1986 the Central Executive Authority inserted second proviso
to Rule 4. The said second proviso provided that a candidate who on the
basis of the results of the previous Civil Services Examination, had been
allocated to the l.P.S. or Central Services, Group 'A' but who expressed his
intention to appear in the next Civil Services Main Examination for
competing for IAS, IFS, IPS or Central Services, Group 'A' and who was
permitted to abstain from the probationary training in order to so appear
shall be eligible to do so, subject to the provisions of Rule 17 and that the
said candidate when allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil
Services (Main) Examination can either join that service or the service to
which he has already been allocated on the basis of the previous CSE and
that if he fails to join either of the services, his allocation based on one or
both the examinations, as the case may be, will stand cancelled. Further,
notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8, a candidate who accepts
allocation to a service and is appointed to that service shall not be eligible
to appear again in the CSE unless he has first resigned from the service. In
other words, a candidate failing within the ambit of this proviso can
appear in the CSE for all the permitted attempts subject to his age limit if
he intends to appear again in the CSE provided he first resigns from the
service which he accepts on allocation and to which he is appointed.
Rule 8 of the Civil Services Examination Rules precludes the
ca~didate who have been appointed to the IAS, or IFS from sitting in the
ensuing examination while in service. The said rule provide that a
candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Ser

## Text

_Characters 0–39,644 of 165,072. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39644 for what follows._

A
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC
SEPTEMBER 13, 1991
B
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI
AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ. ]
Civil Services Examination Rules: Rules 4,8 and 17.
C
Rule 4-Second proviso-Nature, scope and constitutional validity
~
of-Held proviso carves out an exception to Rule 4--lt does not travel
--oeyorrd Rule 4-f'roviso held not ultra vires to clause (iii-a) of Regulation
4 of I.A.S (Appointment by competitive Examination) Regulations,
~955--There is dynamic and rational nexus between the proviso and the'
object to be achieved-Proviso held applicable to candidates belonging to
D Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
E
Rule 8-f'urpose of the Rule-Explained.
Rule 17--Proviso-Validity of- Proviso held valid.
Constitution of /11dia, 1950: Articles 14 and 16--Civil Services-Classification of services-Validity of-Held classification is not based on artificial i11eq1talities. b1tt is founded on substantial differences-Group 'A' and
'B' Services held distinct a11d separate-Classification of group 'A' and 'B'
F
services held reasonable--Seco11d proviso to Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination R1tles held not ultra vires of Article 14 or Article 16.
Part W-A Article 51-A (ii-Fundamental d1tties-Civil Services--
Training Programme of selectees--R.ationale of-Training programme held
in consonance with the Article 51-A (j).
Interpretation of Statute : Statute-f'rinciples of constmcti01r-Legislative i11tenti01r-Ascertainment of--5hould be ascertained by reading the
statute as a whole and in the backdrop of dominant purpose- Wizen the
language is clear and plain court. should constnte it in the ordinary sense .
H and gi~·e effect to it irrespective of consequences-<:onsideration of hardship
46
_..___
I
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I.
47
and inconvenience should be avoided.
Section - Rule/proviso to-Nature and scope of-Rule of interpretation <of proViso-Wliat is-Proviso is expected to except or qualify the enacting part.
A
B
Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules provide that every
candidate appearing at the examination, who is otherwise eligible, shall be
permitted three attempts at the examination. (The attempts are now
increased to four). Under Proviso to the said Rule the restriction on the
number of attempts is not applicable in the case of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible. By a notification C
dated 13.12.1986 the Central Executive Authority inserted second proviso
to Rule 4. The said second proviso provided that a candidate who on the
basis of the results of the previous Civil Services Examination, had been
allocated to the l.P.S. or Central Services, Group 'A' but who expressed his
intention to appear in the next Civil Services Main Examination for
competing for IAS, IFS, IPS or Central Services, Group 'A' and who was
permitted to abstain from the probationary training in order to so appear
shall be eligible to do so, subject to the provisions of Rule 17 and that the
said candidate when allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil
Services (Main) Examination can either join that service or the service to
which he has already been allocated on the basis of the previous CSE and
that if he fails to join either of the services, his allocation based on one or
both the examinations, as the case may be, will stand cancelled. Further,
notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8, a candidate who accepts
allocation to a service and is appointed to that service shall not be eligible
to appear again in the CSE unless he has first resigned from the service. In
other words, a candidate failing within the ambit of this proviso can
appear in the CSE for all the permitted attempts subject to his age limit if
he intends to appear again in the CSE provided he first resigns from the
service which he accepts on allocation and to which he is appointed.
Rule 8 of the Civil Services Examination Rules precludes the
ca~didate who have been appointed to the IAS, or IFS from sitting in the
ensuing examination while in service. The said rule provide that a
candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) or
the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) on the basis of result of an earlier
txamination before the commencement or the ensuing examination and
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] SUPP. 1 S. C. R
A continues to be a member of that service will not be eligible to compete at
the sub sequent examination, even if he is disillusioned and wants to
switch over. Further, this. rule states that in case, a candidate has been
appointed to the IAS or IFS on the basis of the earlier examination and
after the subsequent preliminary examination, but before the main
B examination, the candidate, if continues to be a member of that service,
shall not be eligible to appear in the ensuing main examination
notwithstanding that the said candidate has qualified himself in· the
preliminary examination. Similarly if a candidate is appointed to the IAS
or IFS after the commencement of the Main examination but before the
announcement of the result and continues to be a member of that service,
C the said candidate shall not be considered for appointment to any
service/post on the basis of the result of this examination.
Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules provide that if a
candidate has been approved for appointment to IPS and expresses his
D intention to appear in the CSE (Main) for higher civil service, the services
for which he is eligible to compete are IAS, IFS and Central Services
Group 'A'. Similarly, a candidate who has been approved for appointment
to the Central Services Group 'A' and expresses his 'intention to appear in
the next CSE (Main) the services to which he will be eligible to compete are
IAS, IFS and JPS. The second proviso to Rule 17 provides that a candidate
E who is appointed to a Central Services Group 'B' on the result of an earlier
examination will. be. considered for appointment to IAS, IFS, JPS and
Central Services Group 'A'.
The eligibility of a candidate to appear in the Civil Services
Examination with regard to nationality, age and qualifications is given
F under Regulation 4 of the IAS (Appointment by Competitive Examination)
Regulations, 1955. Clause (iii-a) of the said Regulation provides that
unless covered by any of the exceptions that may from time to time be
notified by the Central Government in this behalf, every candidate
appearing for the examination after 1st January, 1979, who is otherwise
G eligible, shall be permitted three attempts at the examination, and the
appearance of a candidate at the examination wiil be deemed to be an
attempt at the examination irrespective of his disqualification or
cancellation as the case may be, of his candidature.
H
The legality and constitutionality of second proviso to Rule 4 and
+-.--
-..--
,.
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I.
49
Rule 17 was -challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The A
Tribunal held that the second proviso to Rule 4 and Rule 17 were valid
and were not hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In appeals to this court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants
(1) that second proviso to Rule 4 ofthe CSE Rules was invalid because: (a)
it puts embargo restricting the candidates who are seeking to imptove B
their position vis-a-vis their career in government service; (b) it travels
beyond the intent of main rule viz. Rule 4; (c) it is ultra-vires to clause
(iii-a) of regulation 4 of the I.A.S (Appointment by competitive
Examination) Regulation, 1955 in as much as the power to notify
exceptions do not include the power to make candidates ineligible who are C
otherwise eligible in terms of clause (i) to (iii) of Regulation 4; ( d) it is bad
since the authorities have stepped out of the constitutional limits in
issuing the notification inserting the impugned proviso and that it bas not
been placed before the House of Parliament; (e) it is arbitrary and
irrational having no nexus with the object of recruitment to the post of
civil services; (I) it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution D
,because it discriminates between group 'A' and group '8' services i.e. it
excludes the candidates appointed to group 'A' services from competition
while no such embargo is placed restricting the candidates to Group '8'
services; (2) that the second proviso is not applicable to the candidates
belonging to SC ':_)r ST; (3) Proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services
Examination is invalid since it places restriction on candidates who are
seeking to improve their position vis-a-vis their career.
Dismi~sing the appeals, this Court,
E
HELD: 1. If Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules is examined F
h' juxtaposition of clause (iii-a) of Regulation 4, it is clear that both Rule 4
of CSE Rules and Clause (iii-a) of the Regulation 4 show that every eligible
candidate appearing at the Civil Services Examination should be
permitted three attempts at the examination which are now increased to
four under Rule 4 of the CSE Rules. The eligibility of a candidate to G
appear in the CSE with regard to nationality, age and educational
qualifications is given under clauses (i) to (iii) of Regulation 4 but the
Government by exercise of its executive power has imposed certain
restrictions under some specified cireumstances. A plain and grammatical
reading of clause (iii-a) of Regulation 4 shows that if the number of H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991)_ SUPP; 1 S. C.R.
A attempts are covered by any of the exceptions that may from time tO time
be notified by.the Central Govemment in this behalf, then the notification
will become enforceable and only in the absence of such notifieation, every
candidate normally can appear for all permitted attempts at the
·examination whether three or four. The impugned second proviso does not
restrict or put an embargo on the number of attempts in the normal
B course. But the restriction is only when the conditions enumerated in the
impugned proviso are satisfied. The restriction Imposed by the impugned
proviso cannot be said to be unjust, unreasonable or arbitrary or change
of any policy. Moreover, the spirit of the main rule is not in any way
disturbed. (80 B-F, 92 DJ
c
1.1 The restriction or embargo, as the one under consideration is not
only placed on the candidates who on the basis of the result of the previous
CSE had been allocated and appointed to IPS or Central Services Group
'A' but also on the candidates appointed in the higher echelon of civil
D service. There is a far more restrictive rule in existence, namely Ru!e 8 of
the CSE Rules which precludes the candidates who have been appointed to
the IAS or IFS, from' sitting in the ensuing examination while in service.
Further, this rule states that in case~ a candidate has been appointed to
the IAS or IFS on the basis of the earlier examination and after the
subsequent preliminary examination, but before Jfte Main examination,
E that candidate if continues to be a member of that senice, shali not be
eligible to appear in the ensuing main examination notwithstanding that
the said candidate bas qualified himself in the preliminary examination.
Similarly if a candidate is appointed to the IAS or IFS after the
commencement of the main examination but before_ the announcement of
F the result and continues to be a member of that service, the said candidate
shall not be considered for appointment to any service/post on the basis of • ..
the result of this examination. But there is no bar for a candidate who is
appointed to the IAS/IFS resigning from that service and sitting in the
examination for IPS or any Central Service Group 'A'. (86 B-F, 86 G·H]
G
Under Rule 4 of CSE Rules notWithstanding anything contained in
Rule 8, a candidate who accepts allocation to a service and appointed to
that service shall not be eligible to appear again in the CSE unless he first
resigns from that service. In other words, a candidate who is allocated and
appointed to a service can sit in the ensuing examination provided he first
H resigns from that service. This restriction, is a reasonable one in order to
,/
MOHAN KUMAR v. ·u. O. I.
51
achieve the desired result. Thus the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE A
Rules does not travel beyond the intent of the main rule putting any
unjustifiable embargo and the proviso is ·not ultra-vires Regulation
4(iii-a) of Regulations 1955 on the ground that it makes the candidates
ineligible who are otherwise eligible in terms of clauses (i) to (iii) of the
said Regulation and the proviso to Rule 17 is not invalid. [86H, 87 A·CJ
2. An enactment is never to be held invalid unless it be, beyond
question, plainly .and palpably in excess of legislative power or it is
ultra-vires or inconsistent with the statutory or constitutional provisions
B
or it does not conform to the statutory or constitutional requirements or is
made· arbitrarily with bad faith or oblique motives or opposed to public C
policy. (87 C·D]
2.1 While interpreting a statute the consideration of inconvenience
and hardships should be avoided aiid that when the language is clear and
explicit and the words used are phiin and unambiguous, the court is bound
to construe them in their ordinary sense with reference to other clauses to D
the Act or Rules as the case may be, so far as possible, to make a consistent
enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes/Rules/Regulations
relating to the subject matter. Added to this, in construing a statute, the
court has to ascer:tain the intention of the law making authority in the
backdrop of the dominant purpose and the underlying intendment of the E
said statute and that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence
to its language and applied as far as its explicit language ·admits
. consistent with the. established rule of interpretation. (83 F ·G]
Maxwell on the "Interpretation of statutes" 10th Edn. page 7; Craies F
on Statute Law, 5th Edn.; 6th Edn., page 89; referred to.
King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Shanna, AIR 1945 PC 48; Wardurto11 v.
Loveland, (1832] 2 D & CH. (H.L.) 480; Suffers v. Briggs, (1982] 1 A.C. 1.S; .
. Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Teja Singh, [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 394; M.
Pe11tiah and Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107; G
Lt. Col. Pritlti Pal Singh Bedi etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1983) 1 SCR
~
393; A.R. Antulay. v. R.S. Nayak, [1984] 2 SCR 914; Maharashtra State
Board of Seco11dary and Higher .secondary Education and Anr: v. Paritosli
Blmpesh Kunnarsheth etc., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29; Philips l11dia Ltd. v. Labour
Court, Madras a11d Ors., [1985) 3 SCC 103; Balasi11or Nagrik Cooperative
Bank Ltd. v. Babublwi Sltankerlal Pandya and Ors., [19871 1 SCC 608; H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1991] SUPP. 1 S. C. R
A Dr. Ajay Pradhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 514;
L!C v. Escons, AIR 1986 SC 1370, referred to.
2.2 A Proviso to a Section/Rule is expected to except or qualify something in the enacting part and presumed to be necessary. When the impugned second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules is interpreted in its
grammatical meaning and cognate expressions and construed harB moniously with the substantive rule, it is pellucid that the said proviso
only carves out an exception to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules in given circumstances and under specified conditions and, therefore, the second
proviso cannot be read in isolation and interpreted literally. On the other
hand the substantive Rule 4 is be read in conjunction with the two
provisos appended thereto so as to have a correct interpretation. [83H, 85
C E-F)
2.3 :n the Proviso, in dispute, there are no positive words or indications
which would completely exclude the operation of the substantive rule the
spirit of which is reflected in Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1955. The
restriction imp-osed by the second proviso is only under certain
D circumstances. Although the notification introducing the impugned proviso,
has to be strictly construed, the Court cannot overlook the very aim and
object of the proviso thereby either defeating its purpose or rendering it
redundant or inane or making it otzose. Judged from any angle, it is not
possible to hold that there is a violen.t ~reach of the provisions of the
E substantive Rule 4 of CSE Rules and Regulation 4 (iii-a) and it cannot. be
held that the impugned second proviso either subverts or destroys the
basic objectives of Rule 4 and that it is ultra-vires. [85F-H, 86 A-BJ
F
Maxwell on ''17ie Interpretation of statute", 11th edn. page 155; Kent's
Commentmy on American Law, 12th Edn. vol. 1 463, referred to.
Att. Gen. v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1731) Fitzg. 195; Piper v. Harvey, f 1958] 1 Q.B. ,439; R. v. Leeds Pliso (Govemor), (1964] 2 Q.B. 625;
Ram Narain Sons Ltd. and Ors. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax and
Ors., (1955) 2 SCR 483; Abdul lobar Butt & Anr. v. State of Jammu and
Kaslzmi1; ,[1957) SCR 51; Commi~sioner of Income Tax v. S. Teja Singh,
[1959) 1 Suppl. SCR 394; The Commissioner of Income Tax Mysore
G Travancore-Cochin and Coorg., Bangalore v. 77ze lndo Mercantile Bank Ltd.,
(1959) 2 Suppl. SCR 256; Madras & Southcm Mahratta Railway Co. v.
Bezwada Municipality, [1944) L.R. 71 I.A. 113, C01pn. of the City of Toronto
v. Attori1ey-General for Canada, [1946]A.C. 32; Mackinnon Mackenzie &
Co. Ltd. v.Audrey D' Cost and Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 469, referred to.
H
+-
-+--
tMOHAN KUMAR v. V. 0. I.
53
3. The argument that the second proviso is bad since the authorit•es
have stepped out of the constitutional limits in issuing the notification
inserting the impugned proviso and that it has not been placed before the
Houses of the Parliament, has to be rejected because the proviso has been
introduced by the Central Executive Authority under the powers flowing
from Article 73(1) (a) of the Constitution, according to which the executive
power of the Union subject to the provisions of the Constitution shall
extend to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make
laws, but of course subject to the proviso made thereunder. Needless to
point out that whilst by virtue of Clause 1 (a) of Article 73, the executive
power of the Union which is co-extensive with the legislative power of
Parliament can make laws on matters enumerated in List I (Union List)
and List II (Concurrent list) to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution,
under Article 162 of the Constitution, the executive power of the State
Executive which is coextensive with that of the State legislature can make
laws in respect of matters enumerated in List III (State List) and also in
respect of matters enumerated in List II (Concurrent List), subject to the
provisions of the Constitution. [77 D-G]
A
B
c
D
3.1 In the instant case, the Central executive authority has not either
expressly or impliedly changed the policy of the Government by exercising
unreasonable and arbitrary discretion and the present Rule 4 with its
newly added second proviso does not repeal the essential features of the E
pre-existing Rule 4 but only dmits the ambit of the operation of the price 4
under a given situation. Hence, there is no substance in the contention that
the second proviso is bad and that the central executive authority has
transgressed the constitutional limits. [77 H, 78 A]
4. Article 14 declares that the State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India. The cherished principle underlying the above Article is
that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if
as regards the subject matter of the legislation, their position is the same.
(103 H, 104 A]
F
G
4.1
Differential treatment does· not per se constitute violation of
Article 14 and it denies equal protection only when there is no rational or
reasonable basis for the differentiation. Thus Article 14 condemns
discrimination and forbids class legislation but permits classification H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[1991] SUPP. i S.C.R
A founded on intelligible differentia having a rational relationship with
.~
the object sought to be achieved by the Act/Rule/Regulation in
question. The Government is legitimately empowered to frame rules of
classification for securing the requisite standard of efficiency in
. services and the classification need not scientifically be perfect or
B logically complete. Every classification is likely in some degree to
produce some inequality. (104 B-DJ
R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, (19591 SCR 279; /31tdhan Choudhry
v. State of Bihar, (19551 1 SCR 1045; Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v.
Union of India and Ors., [19691 2 SCC 228; State of Jammu & Kashmir v.
Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 771; A.S. Sangwan v. Union of
C India, [19801 Suppl. SCC 559; Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh
(Railway) v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SCC 246; Deepak Sibal v.
Punjab U11ive1:5ity, [1989} 2 SCC 145; Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India [1950]
1 SCR 869; Ameeroonissa v. Mahboob, [1953) SCR 405; Gopi Chand v.
Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609; E.P. Royappe v. State of Tamil
D Nadu, [19741 2 SCR 348; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] I SCC
248; Romana v. Intemational Airport Authority of India, AIR (19791 SC --+
1628; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, [19851 3 SCC 398; Swadeshi Cotto11
Mills v. Union of /ndia,(1981] 2 SCR 533; Central I11la11d Water Transport
Corporatio11 v. Brojo Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571; Devadasan v. Union of India,
[19641 4 SCR 680; Birendra Kumar Nigam and Ors. v~ U11io11 of India, W.P.
E Nos. 220-222 of 1963 decided on 13.3.64, referred to
4.2 The selections for IAS, IFS, and JPS Group 'A' services and
group '8' service a:re made by a combined competitive examination and
~
viva voce test. There cannot be a~y dispute that each service is a distinct
-a~d separate cadre, having its separate field of operation, with different
F status, prospects, pay scales, the nature of duties, the responsibilities to
the post and conditions of service etc. Each of the services is founded on
intelligible differentia which on rational grounds distinguishes persons
grouped together from those left out and that the differences are real and
substantial having a rational and reasonable nexus to the objects sought
G to be achieved. Therefore, once a candidate is selected and appointed to a
"<'
particular cadre he cannot be allowed tO say that he is at par with the
others on the ground that all of them appeared and were selected by a
combined competitive examination and vh>a voce test and· that the
qualifications prescribed are comparabte. The classification of ·services is
H not based on artificial inequalities but is hedged within the salient features
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I.
55
and truly founded on substantial dltrerences. Judged from this point of A
. view, it is not possible to hold that the classification rests on an unreal and
unreasonable basis and that it is arbitrary or absurd. [103C, 106C, 103 J).
E]
4.3 It cannot also be disputed that the candidates allocated to
Group' A' services are more meritorious compared to candidates allocated B
to Group' B' services. Consequently, those allocated to Group' B' services
get lower position compared to those alloeated to Group A! services. 'llle
pay scales in Group 'B' services are comparatively less than those meant
for IAS, IFS and IPS and Central Services Group 'A'. There is a clear cut
separation on the basis of ranking and merit and, therefore, it cannot be C
said by any stretch of imagination that both Group 'A' and Group 'B'
services fall under one and the same category but on the other these
services are two distinct and separate categories falling under two
different classifications. Therefore, there is no discrimination whatsoever
involved on account of the introduction of the second proviso in question D
and the said proviso is not ultra-vires of Article 14 or Article 16 of the
Constitution of India. (97 B-C, 106G]
.. s; .. In the normal course, a candidate belonging to SC/ST category
· can enjoy all the benefits under the rules and regulations. But the
restriction imposed under the second . proviso is only for. a specified E
category of candidates by treating all such candidates at par and without
making any exception to the candidates belonging to SC/ST. The
submission that the second proviso is an independent one does not merit
consideration because the second proviso to Rule 4 begins with the words
"provided fiuther ••••• ".which expression would mean that a strict compliance F
.. of the second proviso ls an additional requirement to that of the
substantive rule 4 and the first proviso. The expression "provided further"
spells out that the first proviso cannot be read in isolation or independent
of the second proviso but it must be read in conjunction with the second
proviso. [89 C-E]
S.1 Once the candidates belonging to SC or ST get through one
common examination and interview test and are allocated and appointed
to a service based on their ranks and performance, and brought under the
G
one and the same stream of category, then they too have to be treated
among. all other· regularly and lawfully selected candidates and there H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] SUPP. 1 S. C. R
A cannot be any preferential treatment at that stage on the ground that they
belong to SC or ST, though they may be entitled for all other statutory
benefits· such as to the relaxation of age, the reservation etc. The
unrestricted number of attempts, subject to the upper age limit, is
available to the SC/ST candidates in the normal course but that is
B subject to t.he second proviso because when once they are allocated and
appointed along with other candidates to a category/post, they are
treated alike. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission that the
second proviso is not applicable to the candidates belonging to SC or
ST. (89 E-G,91H, 92 A]
C
5.2 There may be some hard cases, but the hard cases cannot be
allowed to make bad law. As long as the second proviso does not suffer
f~om any vice, it has to be construed , uniformly giving effect to all those
falling under one category in the absence of any specific provision
exempting any particular class or classes of candidates from the operation
D of the impugned proviso and no one can steal march over others falling
under the same category. Hence the right of candidates belonging to SC
and ST competing further to improve their career opportunities is limited
+
to the extent permissible under the second proviso to Rule 4 read with
Rule 17 of the C.S.E. Rules. (91 F-G]
E
C.A. Raje11dra11 v. Union of India & Ors., [1968] 1 SCR 721; State of
Kera/a v. N.N. 77wmas, [1976] 2 SCC 310; Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamcliari Sangh/Railway) v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 246; M.R.
Ba/aji v. State of Mysore, (1963) Suppl. 1 SCR 439; Triloki Nath v. State of
J&K (1969] 1 SCR 103; T. Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964] 4 SCR 680;
Comptroller and Auditor-Genera/ of India v. K.S. Jaga1111athan, (1986] 2
F SCC 679; Janki Prasad v. State of J&K, AIR 1973 SC 930; General Manager
v. Rangachari, AIR (1962] SC. 36, referred to.
6. There is no denying the fact that the civil service being the top
most service in the country has got to be kept at height, distinct from other
services since these top echelons have to govern a wide variety of
G departments. Therefore, the person joining this higher service should have
breadth of interest and ability to acquire new knowledge and skill since
X
those joining the service have to be engaged in multiple and multifarious
activities. In order to achieve this object, the selectees of this higher civil
services have to undergo training in the National Academy/Training
H institutes wherein they have to undergo careful programme of specialized
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I.
57
training as probationers. The various schemes of training are based on the A
. conviction that splendid active experience is the real training and the
selectees are to be trained in the academies in all kinds of work they have
to handle afterwards with a band of senior chosen officers. [92 H, 93 A-BJ
6.1 The rationale underlying the course at the training centres ·is
that the officers of civil services must acquire an understanding of the B
constitutional, social, economic and administrative framework within
which they have to function and also must have a complete sense of
.J_ _
involvement in the training and thereafter in the service to which he is
appointed. The initial training is in the nature of providing young
probationers an opportunity to counter-act their weak points and at the C
same time develop their social abilities and as such the aspect of training
is the most important of all. (93 C-D]
Hermer Fines, the Theory and Practice of Modem Government;
United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice, referred to.
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajastltan & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 159, referred to.
6.2
The effort taken by the Government in giving utmost
importance to the training programme of the selectees so that this higher
civil service being the top most service of the country is not wasted and
does not become fruitless during the training period is in consonance with
the provisions of Article 51-A (j) orthe Constit~tion. (77-A]
6.3 There is a dynamic and rational nexus between the impugned
second proviso and the object to be achieved. [106-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5439-52of1990 etc. etc.
From the Judgments and Orders dated 20.8.1990/4.10.1990/
15.10.1990· of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
D
E
F
in O.A Nos. 1023, 309, 1705, 1058 & 1054 of 1989 and 1072, 1074, 1162, G
1161, 1122, 1064, 536, 1230of1990 and M.P. No. 1354of1990 in O.A No.
•
309 of 1989.
P.P. Rao, AK. Behere, AK. Sahu, C.N. Sreekumar, Gopal Subramanium, Madhan Panikhar, Mrs. Virola Sinha, Gopal Singh, Salman
Khurshid, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, AM. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V .D. Khanna for H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R.
A the Appellants.
B
Kapil Siba~ Additional Solicitor General~ Ms. Karnini Jaiswal ·and
C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Tribun~
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to asTribunal) rendered
C in various affiliated groupc; 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
No. 13016/4/86-AIS(l) 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 tlie concerned year.
·
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,
E Jabalpur, Hyderabad, Jodhpur and Eranakulam were transferred to the
Tribunal at Delhi since common questions of law arose for determination
in all the OAs.
.
+-
·· .. The Tribunal rendered its main judgnlent in 0.A.No. 206/89 Alok
-·-"'-'
Kμmar v .. Union of India & Ors. and 61 other 0.As in which the facts
F appear to be common. The otherjudgments were passed on the basis of
-the conclusiOns arrived in O.A. No. 206/89 and the connected batch of
OAs. 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
Kumar's case so that the impelling circumstances which led to the filing of
· G these appeals and the cominon questions of law involved may be under-
. stood .in the proper: perspective in the light of the judgnient of ~e Tribunal. - ~
.
In this oontext>if may be noted that though no appeal has been fded
against the Order in O.A.No. 206/89, we are giveμ to understand that Alok
· Kumar who agitated bis similar claim along with two others who were all
H allocated to Group 'A' Services (tR.P.S.) in O.A.No. 1071/1990 has
: ... ;
-~~
-,,/
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I. (PANDIAN, J.)
59
preferred Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 1990 against the judgment in the said A
OA. No. 1071of1990.
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 ('UPSC for short') in June 1987 and
the result was declared in July 1987. The C.S.E. (Main) Examination was B
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, Aiok 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 Kumar's attention was drawn to Rule 4 of the C.S.E. Rules
1987 pointing out that if he intended to a.ppear in the Civil Services (Main) C
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 D
was. required to furnish the information about his appearing in the CSE
(Main) 1988 to the c.oncerned cadre controlling authorities. He was further
informed that only on receipt of the above information, the concerned
cadre controlling authority would permit him to abstrain from the Proba~
· tionary Training. The Joint Director, Estt. G (R), Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board) informed Alok Kumar about his selection for appointE
ment to the Indian Railway Personnel Service and that the training would
commence from 6.3.1989 and that he should report for training at the·
Railway Staff College, Vadodara. Further he was informed that ·he once
joined the Probationary Training along \\ith 1987 batch , he would not be
eligible for consideration of appointment on the basis of subsequent CSE
conducted by the UPSC.
. F
The case of Alok Kumar was that he. did not intend to appear in
the next CSE and he had already appeared for the CSE 1988 even before
he received the offer of appointment dated 2.1.1989. He was then intimated that if _he had already joined the Probationary Training along with
1987 bateh, he would .not be eligible for consideration for appointment on G
the basis of subsequent CSE conducted by the UPSC. Besides the main
reliefs, Alok Kumar had prayed .for an interim order to join and complete
the current Probationary Training without being compelled to sign the
wtJcrf\~king sought to be obtained from him subject to final orders in the
OA. The Division Bench of the Tribunal issued an interim order, as
prayed for by Alok Kumar, allowing him to join the requisite training for H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] SUPP. 1 S. C. R
A the service to which he had been allocated and allowed him to appear in
the interview as and when he was called by the UPSC on the basis of 1988
Examination.
The respondents filed their reply explaining the circumstances under
which the second proviso was introduced to rule 4 of CSE Rules, its scope
B and ambit and refuted all the intentions raised by Alok Kumar challenging
the legality and constitutionality of the impugned proviso.
The Tribunal by its detailed and considered judgment has rendered
'
~-·
its conclusions thus:
~
c
D
E
F
G
H
"Having considered the matter in the above bunch of cases, we
have come to the following conclusions: -
1. The 2nd proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination
Rules is valid.
2. The provisions of Rule 17 of the above Rules are also valid.
3. The above provisions are not hit by the provisions of Arts.
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. The restrictions imposed by the 2nd proviso to Rule 4 of the
Civil Services Examination Rules are not bad in law.
5. (i) The letter issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions dated 30th August, 1988 and in particular, paragraph 3 thereof and paragraph 4 of the letter dated
2.1.1989, issued by the Cadre Controlling Authority, Ministry
of Railways (Railway Board) are held to be bad in law and
unenforceable. Similar letters issued on different dates by
other Cadre controlling Authorities are also unenforceable.
(ii) A candidate who has been allocated to the I.P.S. or to a
Central Services, Group 'A' may be allowed to sit at the next
1 Civil Services Examination, provided he is within the permissible age limit, without having to resign from the service to
which he has been allocated, nor would he lose his original
seniority in the service to which he is allocated if he is unable
to take training with his own Batch.
6. Those applicants who have been allcoated to the I.P.S. or
any Central Services, Group 'A', can have one rnore attempt in
the subsequent Civil Services Examination, for the Services in-
MOHAN KUMAR v. U. 0. I. [PANDIAN, J.]
61
dicated in rule 17 of the C.S.E. Rules. The Cadre Controlling A
Authorities can grant one opportunity to such candidates.
7. All those candidates who have been allocated to any of the
Central Services, Group 'A', or I.P.S. and who have appeared
in Civil Services Main Examination of a subsequent year under
the interim orders of the Tribunal for the Civil Services Ex-
.aminations 1988 or 1989 and have succeeded, are to be given B
benefit of their success subject to the provisions of Rule 17 of
the C.S.E. Rules. But this examination will not be available for
any subsequent Civil Services Examination.
In the result, therefore, the Applications succeed only in
part-viz., quashing of the 3rd paragraph of the letter dated C
30.8.1988 and 4th paragraph of the letter dated 2nd January,
1989 and similar paragraphs in the letters issued to the applicants by other cadre controlling authorities. Further, a
direction is given to the respondents that all those candidates
who have been allocated to any of the Central Services, Group
'A' or l.P.S. and who have appeared in Civil Services Main D
Examination, 1988 or 1989 under the interim orders of the
Tribunal and are within the permissible age limit and have
succeeded are to be given benefit of their success subject to the
provisions of Rule 17 of the C.S.E. Rules. The O.As are dis- -
missed on all other counts."
On the basis of the above directions given in paragraphs 5(ii), 6 and E
7, we gave some interim directions on 7.12.1990 which are annexed to this
judgment as Annexure 'A'.
Several learned counsel appeared for the respective parties and advanced their submissions interpreting the rules and cited a plethora of
decisions in support of their respective cases. Whilst Mr. P .P. Rao, senior F
counsel assisted by Mr. C.N. Sreekumar and others, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar
appeared for the appellants in the various batches of cases, th<{ learned
Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Kapil Sibal assisted by Ms Kamini Jaiswal and Mr.