Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Subbalakshmi Mohan W/O Harkishan Mohan vs Union Public Service Commissioner ... on 9 May, 2008
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Subbalakshmi Mohan, a Stenographer Grade-II in the Ministry of External Affairs, the applicant herein, appeared in the Combined Section Officers/Stenographers (Grade 'B'/Grade-I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2004. For appearing in both the categories only one application form was required to be filled up and in the said application form the order of preference for each category was to be indicated in the coded form. Admittedly, the applicant indicated her first preference as Stenographer, and the second preference as Section Officer. She qualified, as per marks obtained by her, for selection in both categories. She endeavoured to change the preference after the examination to make her second choice as first and the first choice as second. Having failed in her said endeavour, the applicant has filed present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question letter dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure A-1) vide which her representation dated 5.4.2006 seeking change of her preference has been rejected. It is the case of the applicant that if the Tribunal may find no merit in the points projected by her in seeking to set aside order dated 31.5.2006, she would want this Tribunal to quash/set aside rule 4 of the 2004 Examination Rules, vide which choice exercised once by a candidate cannot be permitted to be changed.
2. The facts on which the two reliefs in alternative are sought to rest reveal that the applicant joined the Government of India as LDC in the year 1989 in Department of Telecommunication at Chennai. In October, 1989 she joined the Railway Board as Stenographer Grade-III. In October, 1994 she joined the Ministry of External Affairs as Stenographer Grade-III, and in November, 1995 joined the said Ministry as Stenographer Grade-II. It is her case that she was appointed to all the above posts through open all India competitive examinations, and that she has an excellent record of service and has always performed her duties and responsibilities with utmost sincerity, dedication, devotion and discipline. In the year 2004, she applied for the combined Section Officers/Stenographers (Grade 'B'/Grade I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. She being a Stenographer was eligible to appear in the Examination both for Section Officer as well as Stenographer (Grade 'B'/Grade-I) categories. Result of the examination was declared on 24.3.2004, and the applicant qualified both for Section Officer and Private Secretary/Stenographer (Grade 'B'/Grade-I). She made representation to the respondents that she may be offered the post of Section Officer as she had qualified the examination in that category and vacancy was also available. Meanwhile, the respondents issued the order appointing the applicant as Private Secretary, which she per force had to accept, but she did so without prejudice to her right to be appointed as Section Officer. It is her case that after she had applied for the 2004 Examination, a significant development took place in the Government, particularly in regard to the lateral entry of Stenographers/Private Secretaries to the post of Under Secretary, and as a result thereof Stenographers/Private Secretaries have been barred from being eligible to become Under Secretaries. It is the case of the applicant that the decision had been taken in principle and already applied in the case of CSS and attained finality, and on the same lines, the process is in advanced stage in the IFS also, and it is only a matter of time that this decision is implemented in IFS also because the CSS and IFS rules and service conditions are similar or almost identical, and, therefore, the same process is in final stages in the IFS also. It is the further case of the applicant that that the UPSC did not conduct the departmental examination in the year 2005, otherwise she would have changed her decision and opted for Section Officer instead of Private Secretary. The request of the applicant, as mentioned above, was rejected vide order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure A-1).
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant. By way of preliminary objections, it has inter alia been pleaded that after having participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination in terms of the rules of the Examination, 2004 and having submitted her option in terms of the said rules, the applicant cannot question the same, and further that the policy in relation to the examination or examination rules is not subject to judicial review. It is pleaded that if the applicant had any difficulty with rule 4 of 2004 Examination Rules, she could have questioned the same at the outset and could have refused to give her preference, and that the rule is absolutely rational, fair and is essential for regulating the appointment of qualified candidates. It is then pleaded that the applicant never made any representation against the rules, but she wanted the alteration in preferences indicated by her in her application, which cannot be allowed at this stage. In the application form it was clearly written, 'A candidate competing for two categories should specify in his application the Categories for which he wishes to be considered in the order of preference. No request for addition/alteration in his application will be entertained by the Commission'. After declaration of results, the applicant changed her mind and requested the Ministry to appoint her on the post of Section Officer. It is pleaded that as per rules of the examination, this was not found to be possible, and that in spite of clear cut rule on the matter, the Ministry requested the UPSC and the DOP&T for their views. UPSC and DOP&T had both confirmed that no request for change in preferences indicated by a candidate in his/her application is permissible. There would be no need to refer to pleadings made on merits and parawise reply to the Application, as the same are by and large reiteration of the pleadings made in the preliminary objections. Suffice it, however, to say that with regard to the pleading made by the applicant with regard to lateral entry of Private Secretaries, it has been pleaded that no final decision in the matter has been taken so far, and the issue is to be considered after decision thereon has been taken in the CSS, and that in any case, the question of stopping of lateral entry of Private Secretaries to Under Secretary is going on for quite some time and the applicant should have kept this in mind before making her preferences.
4. By virtue of provisions contained in rule 4 of the 2004 Examination Rules, a candidate competing for two categories is required to specify in his application the categories for which he/she wishes to be considered in order of preference, and no request for addition/alteration would be entertained by the Commission. Rule 4 of the Rules reads as follows:
4. A candidate competing for two categories should specify in his application the Categories for which he wishes to be considered in the order of preference. No request for addition/alteration in his application will be entertained by the Commission.' It has not been disputed that in terms of provisions contained in rule 4 of the 2004 Examination Rules, it was mentioned in the application form that 'A candidate competing for two categories should specify in his application the Categories for which he wishes to be considered in the order of preference. No request for addition/alteration in his application will be entertained by the Commission.
5. Shri L. R. Khatana, learned Counsel representing the applicant, being unable to lay any valid challenge to the impugned order dated 31.5.2006 rejecting the representation of the applicant for change of preference, entirely concentrated upon the vires of rule 4 of the 2004 Examination Rules. It is urged by the learned Counsel that if rule 4 is strictly adhered to, the same would result into a more meritorious candidate being sidelined by a person far less meritorious. To illustrate, it is urged that while a PA (Stenographer Grade-II) who has failed to make it to the post of Private Secretary, would still have unquestionable right to automatically join as Section Officer, but a PA who has qualified for both posts cannot join as Section Officer, and in a given case, one who has been appointed as Section Officer may have secured far less marks than the one who is selected for both posts. Per contra, it is urged by Shri A.K.Bhardwaj, learned Counsel representing the respondents, that if the rule is not strictly adhered to and the candidates are permitted to change their option after the result of the examination, it would lead to chaos and no finality with regard to two different posts shall ever be achieved.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. We find no merit in the only contention of the learned Counsel representing the applicant, as noted above. A similar provision with regard to Civil Services Examination came up for decision before this Tribunal in OA No. 1228/2006 decided on 23.4.2007 in the matter of Mahaveer Singhvi v Union of India & Others. The contention raised therein was that a candidate should be permitted to change his preference before at least declaration of the result. Rule 2 of the Examination held in 1996, in fact did contain a provision for alteration, revision or change in preferences indicated in the application form within thirty days from the date of publication of the results of the written part of the main Examination. The said provision was deleted by rule 2 of the 1998 Examination. Contention raised before this Tribunal was that before declaration of result of CSE 1998 and the actual allocation of service, the applicant had requested for deletion of preference and, therefore, the DOP&T could not have allotted IFS to him. It was urged that there is no rule whatsoever in CSE 1998 as published by notification dated 29.11.1997 which might prohibit such deletion of preference of service before the declaration of final result and actual allocation of service to a candidate. It was further urged that if there be any such rule, the same would be illegal and unconstitutional. The contention of the learned Counsel representing the applicant, as noted above, was repelled.
7. We find no illegality or arbitrariness in rule 4 of the 2004 Examination Rules. The same, in fact has been framed to achieve an object which is of finalising the selection made as early as possible. A free play of change of choices would indeed lead to uncertainty and chaos. To illustrate, if the applicant is permitted to change her choice of preference, it would result in upsetting the whole selection, as surely, the same would have a chain reaction. We are in agreement with the plea raised by the respondents that the rule is rational, fair and essential for regulating appointment of qualified candidates. That apart, we are of the considered view that having given her first choice as Private Secretary (Stenographer Grade 'B'/Grade-I), when it was clearly mentioned in the application form/advertisement itself that choice made once cannot be permitted to be altered later on, and the existence of rule 4, the applicant cannot question the validity of the rule at a later stage, having willingly participated and in fact making her application as per provisions of the rules.
8. Finding no merit in the Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.