Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Union Public Service Commission vs Shri Jaswant Singh on 8 July, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI R.A. NO.102/2013 IN O.A. NO.992/2012 New Delhi this the 8th day of July, 2013 HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHEKAHR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Union Public Service Commission Through Chairman, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069. Review Applicant in the RA/Respondents in the OA Versus Shri Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Pritam Singh R/o J-79, Sri Niwas Puri, Delhi-110065. .Respondent in the RA/ Original Applicant in the OA ORDER BY CIRCULATION By Shri G. George Paracken:
This Review Application has been filed by the Respondent in OA No. 992/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2013. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhatwalia and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri D.S. Mahendru. We have also perused the documents available on record. It is seen that the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) Rules are distinct and separate. Only the CCS (Rules) 1962 have been amended and provisions for holding SLDE has been taken away. However, the IFS Rules, 1964 remain without any change. Moreover, the purpose of DOPT acting as the Nodal Ministry is to coordinate the various participating Ministries under the CCS cadre. Of course, when the CCS Rules have been amended and provisions for holding the SLDE has been taken away, there is no need for the DOP&T to serve as the Nodal Ministry for the said purpose. Therefore, now the Ministry of External Affairs itself has to coordinate with the UPSC to conduct the SLDE as provided in the IFS Rules.
8. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to act in place of the DOP&T for the purpose of holding the LDCE for the Grade-I IFS(B) i.e. Under Secretary. They shall in coordination with the UPSC notify the Rules for the examination within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the UPSC shall hold the examination at the earliest but in any case within four months. With the aforesaid directions, this OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
2. The Review Applicant has sought review of the aforesaid order on the following main grounds:
(1)Because whereas in para 7 of the order, this Honble Tribunal held that, there is no need for the DOP&T to serve as Nodal Ministry for the said purpose. Therefore, now the Ministry of External Affairs itself has to coordinate with the UPSC to conduct the SLDE as provided in the IFS Rules.
(2) Because in para 8 of the order, this Tribunal instead of directing the Respondent No.2 to act in place of DOP&T for the purpose of holding the LDCE, noted that, we, therefore, direct the Respondent No.1 to act in place of DOP&T for the purpose of holding the LDCE..They shall in coordinate with the UPSC notify the rules for the examination within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Whereas Respondent No.1 is the UPSC and Respondent No.2 is the Ministry of External Affairs.
(3) Because due to inadvertent mistake/typographical error, instead of typing Respondent No.2, it has been typed as Respondent No.1.
(4) Because it is the Ministry of External Affairs, i.e., Respondent No.2 who as per the impugned order is to act as a Nodal Ministry for the purpose of holding the LDCE examination and they have to notify the rules for the examination after coordination with UPSC.
(5) Because unless and until the above-mentioned error is rectified, it will not be possible for the respondent No.1 to comply with the directions issued by the Honble Tribunal since the role of UPSC is to conduct examination as per Rules of examination framed and notified by the Government.
(6) That the respondent has not other efficacious remedy available except to file the present review application before this Honble Tribunal.
(7) That the Respondent has not filed any other or similar petition or application before this Tribunal for the same cause of action nor any such application or petition is pending.
(8) That the certified copy of the impugned order was received in the office of Respondent No.1 on 4th April, 2013, hence the present Review Application is within limitation.
3. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the Review Applicant. We are satisfied that there is typographical error in para 8 wherein it has been mentioned as Respondent No.1 but, in fact, it should have been Respondent No.2, i.e., Ministry of External Affairs. Accordingly, in para 8 instead of respondent No.1 it should be read as respondent No.2. Necessary correction be carried out by the Registry in the judgment passed in OA No. 992/2012 and thereafter a fresh copy be issued to both the parties.
6. In view of the above position, this review application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) Rakesh