Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1991] INSC 236 (13 September 1991)
Pandian, S.R. (J) Pandian, S.R. (J) Fathima Beevi, M. (J) Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)
CITATION: 1992 AIR 1 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 46 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 594 JT 1991 (6) 261 1991 SCALE (2)565
ACT:
Civil Services Examination Rules: Rules 4,8 and 17 Rule 4-Second proviso-Nature, scope and constitutional validity of--Held proviso carves out an exception to Rule 4--It does not travel beyond Rule 4---Proviso held not ultra vires to clause (iii-a) of Regulation 4 of I.A.S (Appoint- ment by competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955--There is dynamic and rational nexus between the proviso and the object to be achieved--Proviso held applicable to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Rule 8--Purpose of the Rule---Explained.
Rule 17 Proviso--Validity of-Proviso held valid.
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16---Civil Services--Classification of services---Validity of--Held classification is not based on artificial inequalities but is founded on substantial differences---Group 'A' and 'B' Services held distinct and separate--Classification of group 'A' and 'B' services held reasonable--Second proviso to Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules held not ultra vires of Article 14 or Article 16.
Part IV-A Article 51-A (j)--Fundamental duties-Civil Services-Training Programme of selectees---Rationale of--Training programme held in consonance with the Article 51-A (j).
Interpretation of Statute: Statute---Principles of construction---Legislative intention--Ascertainment of --Should be ascertained by reading the statute as a whole and in the backdrop of dominant purpose--When the language is clear and plain court should construe it in the ordinary sense and give effect to it irrespective of consequences--Consideration of hardship 47 and inconvenience should be avoided.
Section-Rule/proviso to--Nature and scope of--Rule of interpretation of proviso--What is--Proviso is expected to except or qualify the enacting part.
HEAD NOTE:
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 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 I.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 alloca- tion 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 eligi- ble 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 candidate 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 For- eign Service (IFS) on the basis of result of an earlier examination before the commencement of the ensuing examina- tion and 48 continues to be a member of that service will not be eligi- ble 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 examination, the candidate, if continues to be a member of that service, shall not be eligible to appear in the ensu- ing main examination notwithstanding that the said candidate has qualified himself in the preliminary examination. Simi- larly 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, 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 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 inten- tion to appear in the next CSE (Main) the services to which he will be eligible to compete are IAS, IFS and IPS. The second proviso to Rule 17 provides that a candidate who is appointed to a Central Services Group 'B' on the result of an earlier examination will be considered for appointment to IAS, IFS, IPS 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 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 eligible, shall be permitted three attempts at the examination, and the appearance of a candi- date at the examination will be deemed to be an attempt at the examination irrespective of his disqualification or cancellation as the case may be, of his candidature.
The legality and constitutionality of second proviso to Rule 4 and 49 Rule 17 was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The 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 of the CSE Rules was invalid because: (a) it puts embargo restricting the candidates who are seeking to improve 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 otherwise eligi- ble in terms of clause (i) to (iii) of Regulation 4; (d) it is bad since the authorities have stepped out of the consti- tutional limits in issuing the notification inserting the impugned proviso and that it has 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; (f) it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because it discriminates between group 'A' and group 'B' 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 'B' services; (2) that the second proviso is not applicable to the candidates belonging to SC or 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.
DismiSsing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. If Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules is examined in 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 candi- date 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 eligi- bility of a candidate to appear in the CSE with regard to nationality, age and educational qualifications is given under clauses (i) to (iii) of Regulation 4 but the Govern- ment by exercise of its executive power has imposed certain restrictions under some specified circumstances. A plain and grammatical reading of clause (iii-a) of Regulation 4 shows that if the number of 50 attempts are covered by any of the exceptions that may from time to time be notified by the Central Government in this behalf, then the notification will become enforceable and only in the absence of such notification, 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 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 D]
1.1 The restriction or embargo, as the one under consid- eration 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 service. There is a far more restrictive rule in existence, namely Rule 8 of the CSE Rules which precludes the candi- dates who have been appointed to the IAS or IFS, from sit- ting in the ensuing examination while in service. Further, this rule states that in case, a candidate has been appoint- ed to the IAS or IFS on the basis of the earlier examination and after the subsequent preliminary examination, but before the Main examination, that 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 examina- tion. 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, 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] 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 resigns from that service. This restric- tion, is a reasonable one in order to 51 achieve the desired result. Thus the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE 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 in- valid. [86H, 87 A-C]
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 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 policy. [87 C-D]
2.1 While interpreting a statute the consideration of inconvenience and hardships should be avoided and that when the language is clear and explicit and the words used are plain and unambiguous, the court is bound to construe them in their ordinary sense with reference to other clauses to 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 mat- ter. Added to this, in construing a statute, the court has to ascertain the intention of the law making authority in the backdrop of the dominant purpose and the underlying intendment of the 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 on Statute Law, 5th Edn.; 6th Edn., page 89; referred to.
King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sharma, AIR 1945 PC 48; Wardurton v. Loveland, [1832] 2 D & CH. (H.L.) 480;Suffers v. Briggs, [1982] 1 A.C. 1,8; Commissioner of Income Tax v.S. Teja Singh, [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 394; M. Pentiah and Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107;
It. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 393; A.R. Auntlay v.R.S. Nayak, [1984] 2 SCR 914; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmar- sheth etc., [1985] I S.C.R. 29; Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 103; Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 608; 52 Dr.Ajay Pradhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 514; LIC v. Escorts, 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 harmoniously 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 inter- preted 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 E- F]
2.3 In 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 imposed by the second proviso is only under certain 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 redun- dant or inane or making it otiose. Judged from any angle, it is not possible to hold that there is a violent breach of the provisions of the substantive Rule 4 of CSE Rules and Regulation 4 (iii-a) and it cannot. be held that the im- pugned second proviso either subverts or destroys basic objectives of Rule 4 and that it is ultra-vires. [85F-H, 86 A-B] Maxwell on "The Interpretation of statute", 11th edn. page 155; Kent's Commentary on American Law, 12th Edn. vol. 1 463, referred to.
Att. Gen. v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., [1731] Fitzg. 195; Piper v. Harvey,[1958] I Q.B. 439: R. v. Leeds Priso (Gover- nor), [1964] 2 Q.B. 625; Ram Narain Sons Ltd. and Ors. v. Assit. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors, [1955] 2 SCR 483; Abdul Jabar Butt & lint. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1957] SCR 51; Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Teja Singh, [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 394; The Commissioner of Income Tax Mysore Travancore-Cochin and Coorg., Bangalore v. The Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd., [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 256; Madras & Southern Mahratta Railway Co. v. Bezwada Municipality, [1944] L.R. 71 I.A. 113, Corpn. of the City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1946]A.C. 32; Mackinnon Mack- enzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D' Cost and Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 469, referred to.
53
3. The argument that the second proviso is bad since the authorities 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 Parlia- ment, has to be rejected because the proviso has been intro- duced by the Central Executive Authority under the powers flowing from Article 73(1) (a) of the Constitution, accord- ing 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 Arti- cle 73, the executive power of the Union which is co-exten- sive 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 Constitu- tion, 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]
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 pre-existing Rule 4 but only limits the ambit of the opera- tion 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 trans- gressed 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 posi- tion is the same. [103 H, 104 A]
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 dif- ferentiation. Thus Article 14 condemns discrimination and forbids class legislation but permits classification 54 founded on intelligible differentia having a rational rela- tionship with the object sought to be achieved by the Act/Rule/Regulation in question. The Government is legiti- mately empowered to frame rules of classification for secur- ing the requisite standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not scientifically be perfect or logi- cally complete. Every classification is likely in some degree to produce some inequality. [104 B-D] R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, [1959] SCR 279; Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, [1955] 1 SCR 1045; Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, [1969] 2 SCC 228; State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 771; A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India, [1980] Suppl. SCC 559; Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Ors., v. [1981] 1 SCC 246; Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University [1989] 2 SCC 145;
Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India [1950] 1 SCR 869: Ameeroo- nissa v. Mahboob, [1953] SCR 405; Gopi Chand v. Delhi Admin- istration, AIR 1959 SC 609; E.P. Royappe v. Stale of Tamil Nadu, [1974] 2 SCR 348; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248; Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR [1979] SC 1628; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, [1985] 3 SCC 398; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India,[1981] 2 SCR 533; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571; Devadasan v. Union of India, [1964] 4 SCR 680; Birendra Kumar Nigam and 0rs. v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 220-222 of 1963 decided on 133.64, referred to
4.2 The selections for IAS, IFS, and IPS Group 'A' services and group 'B' service are made by a combined com- petitive examination and viva voce test. There cannot be any dispute that each service is a distinct and separate cadre, having its separate field of operation, with different status, prospects, pay scales, the nature of duties, the responsibilities to he 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 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 viva voce test and that the qualifications prescribed are comparable. The classification of services is not based on artificial in- equalities but is hedged within the salient features 55 and truly founded on substantial differences. Judged from this point of 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 D-E] 43 It cannot also be disputed that the candidates allocated to Group 'A' services are more meritorious com- pared to candidates allocated to Group'B' services. Conse- quently, those allocated to Group' B' services get lower position compared to those allocated to Group A' services.
The 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 said by any stretch of imagination that both Group 'A' and Group 'B' services fail under one and the same category but on the other these services are two distinct and separate catego- ries falling under two different classifications. Therefore, there is no discrimination whatsoever involved on account of the introduction of the second proviso in question and the said proviso is not ultra-vires of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. [97 B-C, 106G]
5. 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 category of candidates by treating all such candidates at par and without making any exception to the candidates belonging to SC/ST. The submis- sion that the second proviso is an independent one does not merit consideration because the second proviso to Rule 4 begins with the words 'provided further ..... " which expression would mean that a strict compliance of the second proviso is an additional requirement to that of the substan- tive 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]
5.1 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 one and the same stream of category, then they too have to be treated among all other regularly and lawfully selected candidates and there 56 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 subject to the 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]
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 from any vice, it has to be con- strued, uniformly giving effect to all those falling under one category in the absence of any specific provision ex- empting any particular class or classes of candidates from the operation of the impugned proviso and no one can steal march over others failing 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 10 Rule 4 read with Rule 17 of the C.S.E. Rules. [91 F-G] C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India & Ors'., [1968] 1 SCR 721; State of Kerala v. N.N. Thomas, [1976] 2 SCC 310; Akhil Bharriya Soshit Karamchari Sangh/Railway) v. Union of India
[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-General of India v. K.S. Jaganna- than, [1986] 2 SCC 679; Janki Prasad v. State of J&K, AIR 1973 SC 930; General Manager v. Rangachan, 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 departments.
Therefore, the person joining this higher service should have breadth of interest and ability to acquire new knowl- edge and skill since 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 institutes wherein they have to undergo careful programme of specialized 57 training as probationers. The various schemes of training are based on the 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-B]
6.1 The rationale underlying the course at the training centres is that the officers of civil services must acquire an understanding of the constitutional, social, economic and administrative framework within which they have to function and also must have a complete sense of involvement in the training and thereafter in the service to which he is ap- pointed. The initial training is in the nature of providing young probationers an opportunity to counter-act their weak points and at the 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 Modern Govern- ment; United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice, referred to.
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & 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 provi- sions of Article 51-A (j) of the Constitution. [77-A] 63 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. 5439-52 of 1990 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 in O.A. Nos. 1023, 309, 1705, 1058 & 1054 of 1989 and 1072, 1074, 1162, 1161, 1122, 1064, 536, 1230 of 1990 and M.P. No. 1354 of 1990 in O.A. No. 309 of 1989.
P.P. Rao, A.K. Behere, A.K. Sahu, C.N. Sreekumar, Gopal Subramanium, Madhan Panikhar, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Gopal ,Singh, Salman Khurshid, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for 58 the Appellants.
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Kamini 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 Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) rendered in various affiliated groups of original applica- tions (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(1) dated 13.12.1986 (Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part 1 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 the concerned year.
While a substantial number of O.As filed before the Tribunal at Delhi were pending, a similar number of analo- gous O.As filed before the Benches of Administrative Tribu- nals at Patna, Allahabad, Chandigarh, Jabalpur, Hyderabad, Jodhpur and Eranakulam were transferred to the Tribunal at Delhi since common questions of law arose for determination in all the O.As. The Tribunal rendered its main judgment in O.A.No. 206/89 Alok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. and 61 other O.As in which the facts appear to be common. The other judgments were passed on the basis of the conclusions arrived in O.A. No. 206/89 and the connected batch of OAs. Since the Tribu- nal has set out only the facts in the case of Alok Kurnar (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 A1ok kumar's case so that the impelling circumstances which led to the filing of these appeals and the common questions of law involved may be understood in the proper perspective in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal.
In this context, it may be noted that though no appeal has been filed against the Order in O.A.No. 206/89, we are given to understand that Alok Kumar who agitated his similar claim along with two others who were all allocated to Group 'A' Services (I.R.P.S.) in O.A.No. 1071/1990 has 59 preferred Civil Appeal No. 5469 of 1990 against the judgment in the said O.A. No. 1072 of 1990.
Shri Alok Kumar filed his application in December 1986 to sit for the preliminary examination in 1987. The prelimi- nary examination was held by the Union Public Service Com- mission ('UPSC for short') in June 1987 and the result was declared in July 1987. The C.S.E. (Main) Examination was 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, Alok Kumar was selected for appointment to Central Service Group 'A' post. A commu- nication 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 appear in the Civil Services (Main) 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 was required to furnish the information about his appearing in the CSE (Main) 1988 to the concerned 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 Probationary Training. The Joint Director, Estt. G (R), Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) informed Alok Kumar about his selection for appoint- 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 with 1987 batch, he would not be eligible for consideration of appointment on the basis of subsequent CSE conducted by the UPSC.
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 batch, he would not be eligible for consideration for appointment on 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 undertaking sought to be obtained from him subject to final orders in the O.A. The Division Bench of the Tribunal issued an interim order, as prayed for by Alok Kumar, allowing him to join the requisite training for 60 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 circum- stances under which the second proviso was introduced to rule 4 of CSE Rules, its scope 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:
"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 Constitu- tion 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 Civil Services Examination, provided he is within the permis- sible 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 more attempt in the subsequent Civil Services Examination, for the Services in- 61 dicated in rule 17 of the C.S.E. Rules. The Cadre Controlling Authorities can grant one opportunity to such candidates.
7. All those candidates who have been allocat- ed 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 Examinations 1988 or 1989 and have succeeded, are to be given benefit of their success subject to the provisions of Rule 17 of the C.S.E. Rules. But this examina- tion 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 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 I.P.S. and who have appeared in Civil Services Main 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 dismissed on all other counts." On the basis of the above directions given in paragraphs 5(ii), 6 and 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 counsel as- sisted by Mr. C.N. Sreekumar and others, Mr. Gopal Subrama- niam, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. A.M. Khan- wilkar appeared for the appellants in the various batches of cases, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Kapil Sibal assisted by Ms Kamini Jaiswal and Mr. CVS Rao appeared on behalf of the respondents/Union of India & Others.
The common substantial questions of law, propounded and posed for consideration in all the above appeals are:
(1) Whether the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules 1986 is invalid for the reason that it puts an embargo restricting the candi- dates who are seeking to improve their posi- tion vis-a- 62 vis their career in Government service?
(2) Whether the second proviso under chal- lenge travels beyond the intent of the main rule namely, Rule 4 of the CSE Rules?
(3) Whether the proviso to Rule 17 of the CSE Rules is invalid on the ground that it places restriction on candidates who are seeking to improve their position vis-a-vis their career?
(4) Whether the said second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules is ultra-vires to clause (iii-a) of Regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examina- tion) Regulations, 1955 (for short 'Regula- tions') inasmuch as the power to notify excep- tions does not include the power to make candidates ineligible who are otherwise eligi- ble in terms of clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Regulation 4?
(5) Whether the said proviso which is an administrative instruction introduced by the impugned Notification is arbitrary and irra- tional having no nexus with the object of recruitment to the post of Civil Services?
(6) Whether the impugned second proviso is illegal since it makes a discrimination be- tween the successful candidates of Central Service Group 'A' and Group 'B' as no embargo is placed restricting the candidates of Group 'B' service, as in the case of Group 'A' service and whether the reasons given by the Government to justify the introduction of the impugned proviso have any rational nexus to the object of the scheme of recruitment to the All India Services or/and whether such reasons are arbitrary, unfair and unjust?
(7) Whether the restriction imposed on the number of attempts in pursuance of the im- pugned proviso, in the case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates who were since then availing any number of attempts subject to the eligibility of age limit is unjustifiable and illegal and amounts to deprivation of the right conferred on them by the Constitution of India?
(8) Whether the reasons given by the Govern- ment to justify the introduction of the im- pugned proviso have any rational 63 nexus to the object of the scheme of recruit- ment to the All lndia Services or/and whether such reasons are arbitrary, unfair and unjust?-
(9) Whether the impugned second proviso is suffering from the vice of hostile discrimina- tion and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Recruitment to All India and Central Services - Brief Histo- ry and Present position:
Before entering into an extensive investigation and fullfledged discussion on the questions formulated above, we feel that in order to have a more comprehensive study of the development of the civil service in India a brief history of the past system of recruitment to All India and Central Services based on the then existing mode of selection and the development of the present scheme of examination and method of recruitment till the introduction of the impugned proviso to rule 4 of CSE Rules, is necessary so as to have the background of the entire system and to assimilate the compelling necessity warranting the introduction of the new proviso.
The Indian Civil Service (ICS) Examination was held only in England by the British Civil Service Commission till 1922 and thereafter in India. Four years later, the newly formed Public Service Commission (India) began to conduct the ICS Examination on behalf of British Civil Service Commission and this position continued until 1937 when the Public Service Commission (India) was replaced by the Federal Public Service Commission under the Government of India Act, 1935. Thereafter, the Indian Civil Service Examination in India was held by the Federal Public Service Commission independent of the British Civil Service Commission. After 1943, recruitments to the Indian Civil Service, Indian Police besides the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and allied services were suspended. In 1947 a combined examina- tion was introduced for recruitment to the Indian Adminis- trative Service, Indian Police Service and non-technical Central Services. Between the years 1947-50 a combined competitive examination was held once a year for recruitment for IAS, IFS, IPS and non-technical Central Services. After independence, new services known as the Indian Administra- tive Services (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) were established as All India Services. In order to meet the country's requirement for diplomatic personnel another service known as Indian Foreign Service (IFS) was estab- lished. The Service Commission was redesignated as the Union Public Service Commission in 1950 when the Constitution came into force.
64 While it was so, the U.P.S.C. appointed a Committee in February 1974 under the chairmanship of Dr. D.S. Kothari to make recommendations for further improvement in the system having regard to the needs of various services and accord- ingly the said Committee undertook a painstaking research and carried on a comprehensive and analytical study and thorough examination of the various aspects of the problems connected with the reform in the existing examination and selection by going in great depth and detail and submitted its report on March 20, 1976 after taking into consideration of the fact of frequent receipt of complaints from the training centres and the data collected and made its recom- mendations in evaluating the scheme of civil services by tracing its birth and breadth of the upper tier of this administrative machinery covering its entire field.
On the recommendations of the Kothari Committee the current scheme of Civil Services Examination was introduced from 1979, as per which the Civil Services Examination conducted by the U.P.S.C. has been and is catering to the All India Services viz. IAS, IFS and IPS; and 16 Central Group 'A' Services and 8 Group 'B' Services.
In order to be eligible to compete at the examination, a candidate must satisfy the conditions of eligibility, name- ly, nationality, age and requisite qualifications as envis- aged under Regulation 4 of the I.A.S. (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulation 1955. In addition to the above qualifications, one more condition of eligibility is added under Regulation 4 (iii-a) substituted vide Department of Personnel and A.R. notification No. 11028/1/78-A1S (1)--A dated 30.12.1978, according to which 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 eligible shall be permitted three attempts at the examination. In other words, the number of attempts, a candidate can appear, is also made as one of the conditions of eligibility to sit for the IAS competitive examination.
It may be pointed out in this connection that by a subse- quent notification dated 23.11.1981, Regulation 4 (iii-a) was further clarified that the appearance of a candidate at the examination will be deemed to be an attempt at the examination irrespective of his disqualification or cancel- lation as the case may be of his candidature. An explanation is added to this, explaining "an attempt at a preliminary examination shall be deemed to be an attempt at the examina- tion, within the meaning of this rule".
65 Civil Services Examination - Present Scheme From the CSE held in 1979, each eligible candidate is permitted three attempts at the examination. This restric- tion on the number of attempts does not apply to the candi- dates belonging to SC/ST and other specified categories as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time under Rule 6(b) of the CSE Rules but subject to the relaxa- tion in the upper age limit of those candidates. The scheme of selection of candidates for the Civil Services consists of three sequential stages, each making a significant and specific contribution to the total process. They are:
(1) Preliminary examination serving as a screening test;
(2) The main examination which intended to assess the overall intellectual traits and depth of understanding of candidates; and (3) The interview (viva voce test).
Hermer Finer in his text book under the caption. The Theory and Practice of Modern Government states:
"The problem of selection for character is still the pons asinorum of recruitment to the public services everywhere. The British Civil Service experiments with the interview." The purpose of viva-voce test for the ICS Examination in 1935 could be best understood from the following extract of the Civil Service Commission's pamphlet:
"Viva-voce - the examination will be in mat- ters of general interest; it is intended to test the candidate's alertness, intelligence and intellectual outlook. The candidate will be accorded an opportunity of furnishing the record of his life and education ." It is apposite, in this connection, to have reference to an excerpt from the United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice, which reads thus:
" .... the written papers permit an assess- ment of culture and intellectual competence.
This interview permits an assessment of quali- ties of character which written papers ignore;
it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities." 66 This Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Oth- ers, [1981] 4, SCC 159 while expressing its view about the importance and significance of the two tests, namely, the written and interview has observed thus:
"The written examination assess the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and 'the twain shall meet' for a proper selection".
AGE LIMIT Coming to the eligibility of age, it was initially fixed at 21 to 26 years and then reduced in 1948 to 21 to 25 years. In the following year, the age range was further reduced to 21 to 24 years except for the Indian Railway Traffic Service for which it continued to be 21 to 25 years upto 1955. The lower age limit for IPS was reduced to 20 years in the year 1951 keeping the upper age limit at 24 years. The upper age limit for the Indian Railway Traffic Service was reduced to 24 in 1955. The age limits for all other services remained at 21 to 24 years. Thereafter, though the Public Services (Qualification for Recruitment) Committee appointed by the Government of India in 1955 recommended the reduction of the age range from 21-24 to 21-23 years, the Government did not agree with that recom- mendation and kept the prescribed age limit of 20/21 to 24 years unaltered. The Kothari Committee recommended that a candidate should not be less than 21 years of age and not more than 26 years on the 1st July of the year in which the candidate appears at the examination, with the usual relaxa- tion of upper age limit for SC/ST and other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time. Howev- er, the Committee did not recommend lower age limit of 20 years for the IPS, as was permitted. The Government while not completely agreeing with Kothari's Committee recommenda- tions in regard to some aspects inclusive of age limit while implementing the recommendations, increased upper age limit to 28 years keeping the lower age limit of 21 years unal- tered. Thus, the age limit of 21-28 years was in operation from 1979 to 1987. Then the Government re-considered this issue and reduced the upper age limit to 26 years. During the course of the hearing of these appeals, it has been stated at the bar that the Government of India in February/March 1990 amended the CSE Rules and increased the upper age limit from 26 years to 28 and then to 31 years for the CSE to be conducted by the UPSC.
Now by notification No. 13018/10/90-AIS (I) dated 5th January 1991, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training) published in the Gazette of India in Part I, Sec. I the age eligibility for appearing at the examination in 1991 is that the candidate must have attained the age of 21 67 years and must not have attained 28 years on 1st August 1991 i.e. he must have been born not earlier than 2nd August, 1963 and not later than 1st August, 1970 but subject to the relaxation in the upper age limit to SC/ST and other catego- ries specified under Rule 6(b) of the CSE Rules.
Number of Permissible Attempts Regarding the number of attempts, a candidate could make, the Public Services (Qualifications for Recruitment) Committee in 1955 recommended that in order to identify the best candidates the number of attempts at the combined examination should be limited to two by reducing the age limit to 21-23 years. The Government accepted the recommen- dation regarding restriction of the number of attempts to two instead of three, but provided that these were to be counted separately for the following categories of services Category I - IAS and IFS Category II - IPS and Police Service Class II of the Union Territories Category III - Central Services Class I and Class II In view of the acceptance of the above recommendations, from 1961 onwards, the IAS etc. examination became in effect three examinations. Since the restriction on the number of chances were related not to the examination as a whole, but individual categories, theoretically a candidate could take as many chances as the age limit would permit. Thereafter in 1972 the age limit was raised to 26 years and the reduction of attempts from three to two was not implemented following the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commis- sion. In fact since 1973, candidates were permitted to make three attempts for each of the three categories of services within the permissible age range. It may be stated in this connection that the Kothari Committee had recommended only two attempts for the Civil Services Examination for not only the general candidates but also candidates belonging to the SC/ST but the Government did not agree with these recommen- dations and permitted three attempts to general candidates and did not impose any restriction on the number of attempts on the candidates belonging to SC/ST but of course, subject to their upper age limit. It will be worthwhile, in this context, to refer to the Report of the Committee to review the Scheme of Civil Services Examination under the 68 chairmanship of Dr. Satish Chandra, appointed by the UPSC on 12.9.1988 to review and evaluate the scheme of selection to the higher civil services introduced from 1979 in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection under the Chairmanship of Dr. D.S. Kothari and to make recommendations for further improvement of the system and the relevant excerpt of the report touch- ing on this aspect is as follows:- "We, therefore, recommend that for the general candidates the permissible number of attempts for the Civil Services Examination should continue to be three. For the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes, these should be limited to six." We are referring to the report of the committee chaired by Dr. Satish Chandra only for the purpose of showing the views expressed by it regarding the permissible number of attempts for the CSE that a candidate could make though this report was not available at the time of introduction of the impugned proviso. It may be stated that the Government of India has decided to increase the number of attempts from 3 to 4 for the Civil Services Examination 1990. Reference may also be made to the notification dated 5th January, 1991 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training by which Rule 4 was amended to the fact that "every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted attempts at the examination." Salient Features of the New Scheme:
Thus, the entire framework of the Civil services system have under gone a metamorphosis under the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 and thereafter under our present Constitution of India. Further, pursuant to the recommenda- tions made by various Committees as seen earlier there has been radical change in the system of recruitment to the CSE regard to the scheme of examination, mode of selection, the number of attempts and the eligibility of age limit since such a system was introduced It is clear from the discussion that the totality of the above review on the entire system which system is a legacy of and modelled on the Bri one and a comprehensive survey on the different aspects of the recruitment for the higher civil services manifestly show that this system did not appear suddenly like a 'dues ex machina' created by the legislative test, but 69 evolved in the direction of political objectivity and under- went a long process of gradual transformation and the role and functions of this higher civil services in India after the advent of independence irrefragably play an important and crucial role not only in providing an element of common- ality in administration in our parliamentary democracy but also in accelerating socio-economic development of our country in the context of our constitutional objective of growth with the social justice.
The present time cycle of the CSE is such that it takes almost a year from the date of the preliminary examination to the commencement of the final results in that the prelim- inary examination is held in the month of June and the result of the preliminary examination is announced by the UPSC at the end of July. The Main examination is held in the first week of November, the result of which is usually announced by the third week of March and the interviews begin in the third week of April to the end of May and the results are announced in the month of June.
The merit list of successful candidates is prepared on the basis of their aggregate marks in the Main Examination and interview test and then the successful candidates are selected and allotted to different services based on their ranks and preference. The top rankers in the merit list join the IAS or IFS and then the IPS. The candidates who get into the merit list with low position are brought and classified either under Group 'A' or Group 'B' as the case may be, but having regard to their ranks in the order of merit and the selection of candidates in Group 'A' or Group 'B' is based within the zone of eligibility.
It may be noted that out of total 27 services/posts, as per notification dated 30.12.1989, the first three, namely, IAS, IFS and IPS are All India Services. Of the rest, from IV to XIX are Central Services Group 'A' and the remaining XX to XXVII are Group 'B' services. For all these services, the recruitment is made by combined competitive CSE.
Since the pleadings in all the appeals are substantially of the same paradigm and the issues of considerable impor- tance raised are homogeneous and as the principal arguments were advanced in the same line except with some slight variation with regard to some particular issues relating to certain appeals and also the reply was commonly made, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judg- ment.
70 We may now in the above background of the history of the scheme of the Civil Services, proceed to consider the var- ious contentions advanced by the respective parties on the validity of the impugned second proviso to Rule 4 of the C.S.E. Rules and for that purpose we, in order to have a proper understanding and appreciation of the scope, object, ambit and intent of the impugned proviso, shall re-produce the relevant Rules 4, 8 and 17 and Regulation 4(iii-a) of the I.A.S. (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regula- tions, 1955.
CSE RULES Rule 4: "Every candidate appearing at the examination, who is otherwise eligible, shall be permitted three attempts at the examina- tion, irrespective of the number of attempts he has already availed of at the IAS etc.
Examination held in previous year. The re- striction shall be effective from the Civil Services Examination held in 1979. Any at- tempts made at the Civil Services (Prelimi- nary) Examination held in 1979 and onwards will count as attempts for this purpose:
Provided that this restriction on the number of attempts will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candi- dates who are otherwise eligible:
Provided further that a candidate who on the basis of the results of the previous Civil Services Examination, had been allocated to the I.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 Serv- ices, 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. If the candidate is allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil Services Main Examina- tion he shall join either that Service or the Service to which he was allocated on the basis of the previous Civil Services Examination failing which his allocation to the service based on one or both examination, as the case may be, shall stand cancelled and notwith- standing anything contained in Rule 8, a candidate who accepts allocation to a Service and is appointed to a service shall not be eligible to appear again in the Civil Services Examination unless he has first resigned from the Service.
71 NOTE:-
1. An attempt at a preliminary examination shall be deemed to be in attempt of the Exami- nation.
2. If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in the preliminary Examination he shall be deemed to have made an attempt at the examination.
3. Notwithstanding the disqualification/can- cellation of candidature the fact of appear- ance of the candidate at the examination will count as an attempt.
Rule 8: A candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Service or the Indian Foreign Service on results of an earlier examination before the commencement of this examination and continues to be a member of that service will not be eligible to compete at this examination.
In case a candidate has been appointed to the IAS/IFS after the Preliminary Examination of this examination but before the Main Examina- tion of this examination and he/she shall also not be eligible to appear in the Main Examina- tion of this examination notwithstanding that he/she has qualified in the Preliminary Exami- nation.
Also provided that if a candidate is appointed to IAS/IFS after the commencement of the Main Examination but before the result thereof and continues to be a member of that service, he/she shall not be considered for appointment to any service/post on the basis of the re- sults of this examination.
Rule 17: Due consideration will be given at the time of making appointments on the results of the examination to the preferences ex- pressed by a candidate for various services at the time of his application. The appointment to various services will also be governed by the Rules/Regulations in force as applicable to the respective Services at the time of appointment.
72 Provided that a candidate who has been ap- proved for appointment to Indian Police Serv- ice/Central Service, Group 'A' mentioned in Col. 2 below on the results of an earlier examination will be considered only for ap- pointment in services mentioned against that service in Col. 3 below on the results of this examination.
SI. Service to which approved Service for which No. for appointment eligible to compete 1 2 3
1. Indian Police Service. I.A.S., I.F.S., and Central Services, Group 2. Central Services, Group 'A' I.A.S.,I.F.S. and I.P.S.
Provided further that a candidate who is appointed to a Central Service, Group 'B' on the re
