Mandeep Singh Bhatia vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 822 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. The original applicant before the Tribunal is the writ petitioner herein. He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), which was marked as O.A. No. 2338 of 1997, questioning the validity of an order dated 26.07.1996 in terms whereof the respondent No. 3 refused to allocate the petitioner in India Railway Traffic Service (in short, 'IRTS') along with the batch of Civil Services Examination, 1996 (in short 'CSE, 1996') despite his completion of foundation course.

2. The petitioner applied for and appeared at Civil Services Examination (Preliminary) and (Main) Examination, 1994. His results were declared in June, 1996 wherein he was declared successful and stood at 330th rank. He was accordingly allocated Assistant Security Officer Group 'A' in Railway Protection Service (in short, 'ASO Group 'A' in RPF').

3. He further applied for CSE, 1995 for betterment of his results upon obtaining permission therefore in terms of Rule 4(a) of CSE, 1994. The said permission was granted on 16.05.1995. He succeeded in CSE, 1995 wherein his rank was 170. The petitioner contends that in terms of his merit position he was entitled to allocation of IRTS.

4. On or about 22.01.1996, the respondent No. 3 sent an offer of appointment for the post of ASO Group 'A' in RPF. The petitioner by his letter dated 12.06.1996 stated that he did not wish to join the said post and sent his resignation declining the offer of appointment to the post of ASO Group 'A' in RPF on the basis of CSE, 1994. The said letter was received on 14.06.1996.

5. By a letter dated 20.06.1996, the said resignation of the petitioner was accepted. However, the offer of appointment for the post of ASO Group 'A' in RPF was cancelled. By reason of the impugned letter dated 26.07.1996, the petitioner was informed that having regard to declination of the offer of appointment to the post of ASO Group 'A' in RPF by him, the said offer had been annulled and the offer of appointment to CSE, 1996 still stands.

6. The petitioner contended before the authorities of the respondent that as he had been declared successful in CSE, 1995, he should have been allocated IRTS, but the same was not accepted. The petitioner in the aforementioned situation was left with no choice other than accepting the offer of appointment for the post of ASO Group 'A' in RPF, as allocation to IRTS on the basis of CSE, 1995 was not done. The petitioner contends that he had to do so as otherwise he would have lost both the offers.

7. The petitioner made several representations thereafter repeating his contentions, the last one being dated 12.07.1996 wherein he prayed for being allocated to IRTS along with the batch of CSE, 1996 as he had by that time completed the foundation course.

8. By reason of the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 26.07.1997, the respondent No. 3 rejected the representation of the petitioner holding that his resignation of the 1994 post was received after the declaration of CSE, 1995. He thereafter filed the aforementioned original application questioning the said order dated 26.07.1996.

4. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 12.04.1999, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application stating:-

"9. Petitioner's case also suffers from yet another infirmity and that is with reference to acceptance of his resignation letter of ASC/RPF by the respondents herein. From the maze of Petitioner's claims and counterclaims by the respondents, what needs to be determined is whether Petitioner's letter of resignation dated 12.6.1996 was delivered to the respondents before 17.6.1996. Petitioner would claim to have "delivered it personally on 14.6.1996" as per Petitioner's statement in the rejoinder dated 12.5.1998. Whereas respondents by A-1 communication dated 26.7.1996 mentions as under:-

"Refer to your letter dated 12.6.1996 personally delivered by you in E(GR)-I Branch on 20.6.1996"

10. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that the learned Tribunal proceeded on a wrong premise insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the letter dated 12.06.1996 was delivered personally to the concerned respondent, which was received on 14.06.1996. The said letter reads thus:-

"THE DY. DIRECtor ESTT(GR), RAILWAY BOARD,

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,

NEW DELHI.

Sub:- Declining of offer of appointment to the

post of Assistant Security Officer

(Group-A) in RPF on basis of Civil

Services Examination, 1994.

Dear Sir,

Wit Reference to your letter No. 95/E(GR)I/33/1 dated 22-1-96, I wish to inform you that I decline the offer of appointment to the post of Assistant Security Officer, Group-A in RPF."

11. A bare perusal of the said letter would clearly show that on the body thereof an endorsement that the same was received on 14.06.1996 appears.

12. The letter of the respondent dated 20.06.1996 is in the following terms:-

"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (BHARAT SARKAR) MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAIL MANTRALAYA) (RAILWAY BOARD)

NO. 95/E(GR)I/33/I NEW DELHI DT. 20.06.1996

1. (a) Shri Mandeep Singh Bhatia, RPF House No. 554/B, Railway Officers' Colony, Kota (Rajasthan)-324002

(b) Shri Mandeep Singh Bhatia H.NO. G-130, Naraina Vihar New Delhi-28

Sub: Recruitment to the RPF on the result of the Civil Services Examination 1994 cancellation of offer of appointment.

Ref: Ministry of Railways letter of even number dated 22.1.199

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter dated 12.6.1996 and to state that since you have expressed unwillingness to join RPF on the basis of CSE, 1994, the offer of appointment made to you vide this Ministry's letter referred above is hereby withdrawn and treated as cancelled. It may be stated that you will not be considered for appointment to any service/post based on Civil Services Examination 1994.

Yours faithfully,

(Manessh Kumar)

Dr. Director, Estt. (GR),

Railway Board,

New Delhi, Dt. 20.6.1996"

13. There, thus, cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the petitioner's letter dated 12.06.1996 was received prior to 20.06.1996. The result of CSE, 1995 was declared only on 17.06.1996.

14. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, misdirected itself in arriving at a finding that because of a doubtful endorsement, the respondents decided to correct the error, keeping in view the fact that the respondents issued the aforementioned letter on 20.06.1996, the onus was on them to show that the same was issued by way of mistake. The endorsement of receipt of the said letter on 14.06.1996 was questioned. It was for the respondents to discharge the onus that such endorsement was wrong. It failed to do so.

15. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that having regard to the fact that the respondent had the special knowledge in relation to the said fact in terms of the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was for the respondents to prove as to when the letter of the petitioner dated 12.06.1996 was received.

16. However, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this case in view of Rule 18 of CSE 1994.

Rules 4 and 18 of the CSE, 1994 are as under:-

"Rule 4 : Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise eligible, shall be permitted four attempts at the examination irrespective of the number of attempts he has already availed of at the IAS etc. Examination held in previous years. The restriction shall be effective from the Civil Services Examination held in 1979. Any attempts made at the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination held in 1979 and onwards will count as attempts for this purpose:

Provided that the restriction on the number of attempts will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible.

Provided further that :

(a) A Candidate allocated to the IPS or a Central Service, Group 'A' on the results of the Civil Services Examination, 1994 shall be eligible to appear at the examination being held in 1995 only if he has obtained permission from Govt. to abstain from probationary training in order to so appear. If in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 18, such a candidate is allocated to a Service on the basis of the examination being held in 1995, he shall join either that service or the Service to which he was allocated on the basis of the civil Services Examination, 1994 failing which his allocation to the Service based on one or both the examinations as the case may be, shall stand cancelled; and

(b) A candidate allocated or appointed to the IPS/Group 'A' Service/post on the basis of the civil Services Examination held in 1993 or earlier years shall not be eligible to apply for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination to be held in 1995; unless he first gets his allocation cancelled or resign from the service/post:

NOTE :-

1. An attempt at a Preliminary Examination shall be deemed to be an attempt at the Examination.

2. If a candidate actually in any one paper in the Preliminary Examination, he shall be deemed to have made an attempt at the Examination.

3. Notwithstanding the disqualification/ cancellation of candidature, the fact of appearance of the candidate at the examination will count as an attempt.

4. For purpose of Clause (b) of second proviso to this rule merely writing to the competent authority would not suffice. The Candidate should produce documentary proof that his/ her offer of allocation has actually been cancelled/resignation has been accepted."

" Rule 18 : Due consideration will be given at the time of making appointments on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for various services of the time of his application. The appointment to various services will also be governed by the Rule Regulations in force as applicable to the respective Services at the time of appointment.

Provided that a candidate who has been approved for appointment to India Police Service/Central Services, Group 'A' including the posts of Asstt. Security Officer in R.P.F. and Asstt. Commandant in C.I.S.F. mentioned in Col. 2 below on he results of an earlier examination will be considered only for appointment to services mentioned against that service in Col. 3 below on the results of this examination.

Sl.

No.

Service     to    which approved                for appointment

Service to which eligible to complete

Indian Police Service

i.a.s.,  i.f.s, and Central  Services Group 'A' including R.P.Fand C.I.S.F.

Central Services Group 'A' R.P.F. and C.I.S.F.

I.A.S., 

I.F.S  and  

I.P.S. including

Provided further that a candidate who is appointed to a Central Service, Group 'B' including posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police in C.B.I. on the results of an earlier examination will be considered only for appointment to IAS, IFS, IPS and Central Services, Group 'A' including R.P.F. and C.I.S.F.

17. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner had obtained permission from the competent authority to appear at CSE, 1995. In terms of proviso (a) appended to Rule 4, the petitioner if allocated into a service on the basis of CSE, 1995, an option is to be exercised by him as to which of the two services he would join. Such option, however, is limited to the Examinations, which are referred to in Rule 18. The proviso appended to Rule 18 speaks of those candidates, who have been approved to appointment to Indian Police Service/Central Services, Group 'A' including RPF and CISF. Central Services Group 'A' would means IAS, IFS and IPS including RPF and CISF. IRTS, therefore, is not a service, which would come within the purview of Rule 18.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that proviso appended to Rule 4 will have no application as the petitioner could not have opted for IRTS despite his fairing better in CSE, 1995 as IRTS is not a service, which comes within the purview of Rule 18.

18. The matter, in a case of dispute of this nature, indisputably should be considered by the statutory authority. Its decision, in exercise of power of judicial review, can be interfered only on limited ground.

19. As noticed by the learned Tribunal also in Nottinghamshire Country Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Anr. 1986 (1) All E.R. 199, it was held that where the existence of non-existence of a fact is left to the discretion of a public body, and that fact involves a broad spectrum of ranging from the obvious to the debatable or the just conceivable. It is the duty of the Court to leave it to that body, save in cases where it acts perversely.

20. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal for different reasons cannot be interfered with.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.