Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Pal vs Union Public Service Commission on 21 November, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.2740/2014
Order reserved on: 17.11.2014
Order pronounced on: 21.11.2014
Honble Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
Amit Pal
S/o Shri Amarjit Pal,
House No. 24, Near Mandir,
Vishal Nagar, Pakhowal Road,
Ludhiana-141013 (Punjab) -Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ashish Kumar)
Versus
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Naresh Kaushik &
Shri Ravinder Agarwal)
O R D E R
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant has filed this O.A. for quashing the communication dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure A-7) by which he has been informed that his transaction had failed and had been refunded to him on 02.06.2014, and further that no payment had been received by UPSC against the Registration ID. It was also informed that the applicant was not a candidate for SCP-2014.
2. According to the applicant, he had filled up the Online Application Form for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination-2014 and the last date for submission of application was 30.06.2014 and the examination was scheduled on 24.08.2014. The submission of the Application Form was acknowledged by the Respondent-UPSC and he was also intimated that it had been accepted successfully. Requisite formalities including payment of fees were completed and vide the e-mail at Annexure A-3, it was intimated to him that he was successfully filled up the form for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination-2014. The applicant appeared in the examination and was declared successful. He tried to download his Admit Card on 25.07.2014 and since it was not available on the website, he sent an e-mail on that very date to the respondents for issuance of Admit Card. A reply by e-mail was sent by the respondents informing the applicant that no payment had been received by the UPSC despite the earlier e-mail confirming successful submission of the application form.
3. The applicant has approached the Tribunal through this O.A. thereafter seeking the following reliefs:-
a) Quash/set aside the communication dated 25.07.2014 of the Respondent;
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the Respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination-2014; and
c) To issue direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent to accept the candidature of the petitioner for Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination-2014; and;
d) Pass such further order and orders as it may deem fit and facts and circumstances of the case.
A prayer for Interim Relief was also made, inter-alia, to the effect that the respondent be directed to issue Admit Card pending adjudication of the issues in the O.A. and to allow him to appear in the examination.
4. On 22.08.2014, the respondents were directed to permit the applicant to appear in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination to be held on 24.08.2014 on provisional basis by issuing an Admit Card with the further direction that the result of the applicant shall not be declared and shall be kept in a sealed cover till further directions of the Tribunal.
5. The applicant appeared in the examination and after declaration of the results requested that the results of the applicant be produced and the sealed cover containing the same be opened at this stage. On 05.11.2014 itself, it was decided that in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in UPSC vs. S. Krishna Chaitanya, (2011) 14 SCC 227, the matter would be finally adjudicated . The matter was heard on 17.11.2014. Mr. Ashish Kumar appeared for the applicant and Mr. Naresh Kaushik along with Mr. Ravinder Agarwal appeared for the Respondent-UPSC.
6. Briefly what was argued and admitted by both parties was that the UPSC had published the relevant Examination Notice for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2014 on 31.05.2014 and, therefore, the applications could have been filed only on or after 31.05.2014. The last date for submission of applications was 30.06.2014. It was pointed out by the counsel for respondent that this was stipulated in Appendix-II of the notice of the advertisement that the online applications could be filled from 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, as is also so admitted in the written submissions filed by him, that he had filled up the application on 30.05.2014 because it was available on the respondents website on that date.
7. Referring to Annexure A-3 which bears the date 30.05.2014 counsel for applicant argued that since the application form had been accepted and the Registration Number was given to him, his application was a valid application duly supported by acknowledgement on receipt of examination fee, because the same was subsequently refunded to him, and that even the advertisement of the UPSC did not state that the applicants application could not be filed online before 31.05.2014, because the word shall was not used.
8. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the UPSC, as appears from the advertisement itself, that the Gazette Notification was issued on 31.05.2014 and even the date of notice for the examination was specified as 31.05.2014. A copy of the advertisement published in the Employment News on 31 May-6 June 2014, which is at Annexure A-1 confirms the same. On the next page of that very Annexure is Appendix-II, i.e., the instructions to the candidates for filing online applications. It is clearly mentioned therein that the online applications (Part-I & Part-II) can be filled from 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014.
9. We, thus, fund no ambiguity regarding the fact that the applications were to be filed on or after 31.05.2014 till 06.06.2014. In the written submissions respondents have referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in UPSC vs. S. Krishna Chaitanya (supra, Para-28 & 30 of the judgment, which has been reproduced in the written submissions, and is as under:-
28. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent was not taking the examination for the first time. According to him, he had taken the examination earlier also but unfortunately he was not successful. Thus, he was having experience about the way in which the application form is filled up, how that is to be submitted and the way in which acknowledgement card is sent by the appellants. In our opinion, this negligence on his part has resulted into his sufferance and he himself is only to be blamed for the events.
29. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
30. We may add here that this Court has observed time and again that an interim order should not be of 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 that by virtue 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 increase work of the institution which conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates approaching the court.
(Emphasis supplied).
10. No doubt, no application can be filed in the absence of any notice inviting applications, and/or in contravention of any notice for application. According to the UPSC, a trial run for online application form was undertaken before 31.05.2014. Without having gone through the contents of the notice the applicant has filed his on-line application one day before the date of filing applications, i.e., on 30.05.2014. This would not in any way entitle him to be considered as a valid applicant for the said examination. The judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.7198/2014 Sachin Kumar Rana vs. Union of India & Ors. has also been cited by the applicant and the following portion of the judgment has been reproduced in the written submissions:-
Considering the fact that the petitioner failed to complete the application form either due to his carelessness, ignorance or negligence, he has not made out any case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The aforenoted judgment would be applicable in the applicants case. We have to take note of the aforenoted judgment and in that light also filling up the application form prior to the date of advertisement of notice cannot be treated as valid, or successful completion of the application form.
11. We are, therefore, to conclude that the applicant had applied for the examination on a date on which no notice inviting applications existed. No right can, therefore, accrue to him on the basis of a non-existent advertisement because of which the claim of having filed a valid application successfully cannot be accepted. Mere acceptance of fees and other documents by the Respondent-UPSC would in no way entitle the applicant to be treated as having validly applied for the examination.
12. As far as opening the sealed cover containing the results of the applicant, who appeared in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination under the Tribunals direction on a provisional basis is concerned, there seems no necessity to do the same in view of the fact that OA is liable to be dismissed on account of the aforesaid reasons.
13. O.A. is dismissed.
14. Interim order issued earlier qua the applicant stands vacated. Respondent-UPSC would be at liberty to take appropriate decision in the matter.
15. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.