Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. As would be seen from the aforesaid Rule, it was permissible for the candidates to change their preferences within 30 days of the declaration of the results of the Main Examination.

The options given by the petitioner were as follows:

1. I.A.S 7. CAS
2. I.P.S 8.PONDI(CIVIL)
3. IC & CES 9.CBI (GR.B)
4. I.R.S 10. C.S.S.
5. DANICS 11. A.F.M.Q.
6.DANICS(P) 12. R.B.S.S. According to his rank in CSE 1996 he was allocated to the Central Secretariat Services (CSS), Group `B' service, which was his 10th preference.

5. Rule 4 of CSER 1995 prescribed number of attempts that a candidate could make at the Civil Services Examinations. While four attempts were permitted to general category candidates, for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates there was no restriction on the number of attempts that they could make, provided they were otherwise eligible. Vide letter dated 11.2.1997 the petitioner was given an offer of appointment. The petitioner was informed that in case he proposed to appear in the Civil Services Examination, 1997, (CSE 1997) while retaining his allocation to CSS Group`B' service he should apply for permission to appear in the said examination.

8. The options/preferences given by the petitioner while WP(C) No.5129/1999 page 5 of 50 appearing in CSE, 1997 were the following:

1.IAS 9. ITS 17. IDAS
2.IPS 10. IRTS 18. IIS
3.IFS 11. IAAS 19. I. POSTAL
4.IC & CES 12. IRAS 20. IOFS
5.IRS 13. CBI (Dy. Supdt.) 21. RPF
6.DANICS @ 14. IRPS 22. CISF
7.DANICS (P) 15. IP & TFAS 23. PONDICHERRY(A)
8.CAS 16. ICAS 24. PONDICHERRY (P)
25. IDES

9. It appears that even though the allocation of service in respect of the petitioner had not been finalised on the basis of his result in CSE 1997, the petitioner filed OA No.1423 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (The Tribunal), as he apprehended that he would not be allocated the services for which he was entitled as per his rank and as per his preferences given at the time of taking CSE 1997, and that he would be bound down to the preferences given by him while taking CSE, 1996. The apprehension of the petitioner was based upon a reading of the impugned Rule 18 of CSER 1996, which reads as follows: