Delhi High Court
Shree Prateek vs Union Of India And Anr. on 16 December, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~74.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11752/2015
% Judgment dated 16.12.2015
SHREE PRATEEK ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Arvind Nayar and Ms.Neha Singh,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Ms.Kritika and
Ms.Additi, Advs. for respondent
no.2/UPSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 31277/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11752/2015 & CM APPL. 31276/2015
3. This matter has been listed before this Court at 4.15 p.m. upon mentioning
before DB-2.
4. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
„Tribunal‟) in O.A.No.4506/2015 by which the prayer made by the
petitioner i.e. (i) to allow him to change his language/medium of
examination from Punjabi to English for Paper 1 to Paper VII for the
Civil Services (Main) Examination, and (ii) the prayer for grant of
interim relief thereby allowing him to appear in the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2015, scheduled to be conducted w.e.f. 18.12.2015 to
23.12.2015, in English language medium, have been declined.
5. The necessary facts to be noticed are that the petitioner had cleared his
Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2015. Thereafter the petitioner
filled the form for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2015, on
13.11.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that inadvertently he had
mentioned Punjabi language instead of English language as the medium
of examination for papers 1 to 7. It is further the case of the petitioner
that this was an inadvertent error, which is evident from the fact that for
the interview test the petitioner had mentioned English. It is also the case
of the petitioner that as soon as he realised his mistake, on 2.12.2015 at
9.00 p.m. he sent an email to the UPSC for rectification of his mistake
and also requested for change of medium of examination from Punjabi to
English language. The petitioner also went to the office of the UPSC on
3.12.2015 and submitted a letter in the office, but his request for change
of medium of the examination was declined, which led to the filing of the
O.A. before the Tribunal, however, the prayer made by the petitioner for
interim relief was rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before this court that
throughout his career the petitioner has studied in English medium and in
case the interim relief is not granted to the petitioner and the petitioner is
not permitted to appear in the English medium for the Civil Services
(Main) Examination, he would not only suffer irreparable loss but it
would also cause serious prejudice to him.
7. Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of respondent
no.2/contesting respondent, on an advance copy and has drawn the
attention of the Court to the instructions to candidates of Civil Services
(Main) Examination, 2015, more particularly instruction no.6 of the
Instructions to Candidates of Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2015,
wherein it has categorically been stated that no correspondence would be
entertained by the Commission from the candidates to change any entry
made in the application form. Instruction 6 reads as under:
"Instructions to Candidates of Civil Services (Main) Examination,
2015.
6. Candidates are advised to read carefully the Rules of the
examination which include the detailed scheme of the examination,
as published in the Govt. of India Gazette (Extraordinary) dated
23.05.2015 (copy can be downloaded from the UPSC website).
They should note that no correspondence will be entertained by the
commission from candidates to change any of the entries made in
the application form. They should, therefore, take special care to
fill up the application form correctly. No column of the application
should be left blank.
Candidates should note that under no circumstances will
they be allowed to change in Centre, Optional Subject, Indian
Language paper (Paper-A) and Medium of Examination they have
indicated in their filled online CS(P) application form."
8. Mr.Kaushik further contends that in view of the express bar the UPSC has
rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner and in view of the
specific bar no useful purpose would be achieved in permitting the
petitioner to appear in the examination when the main petition is liable to
be dismissed. Counsel also contends that in the case of Secretary, Union
Public Service Commission And Anr. v. S. Krishna Chaitanya, reported
at 2011 (14) SCC 227, the practise of the Court‟s directing the authorities
concerned, through interim orders, to permit students to take examination
was deprecated by the Supreme Court of India.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions. We have also carefully examined the impugned order dated
15.12.2015 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while passing the
impugned order has rightly taken note of instructions no.6, reproduced
hereinabove, and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
UPSC, and correctly applied the same to the facts of the present case.
10. In the case of Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported
at AIR 2006 SC 2609, the Supreme Court of India has made the
following observations:
"27. We may add here that this Court has observed time and
again that an interim order should not be such a nature that by
virtue of which a petition or an application, as the case may be, is
finally allowed or granted even at an interim stage. We reiterate
that normally at an interlocutory stage no such relief should be
granted by which of which the final relief, which is asked for and is
available at the disposal of the matter is granted. We, however,
find that very often courts are becoming more sympathetic to the
students and by interim orders authorities are directed to permit
the students to take an examination without ascertaining whether
the concerned candidate had a right to take the examination. For
any special reason in an exceptional case, if such a direction is
given, the court must dispose of the case finally on merits before
declaration of the result. In the instant case, we have found that the
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 the
examinations. In our opinion, grant of such interim orders should
be avoided as they not only increases work of the institution which
conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates
approaching the court."
11. In view of above, we find no grounds to interfere in the impugned order.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which requires
interference in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
CM APPL. 31276/2015
12. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
13. Let a copy of this order be given DASTI to the parties under the signature
of Court Master.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 16, 2015
msr
