Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 733 (UTT)

Rajeev Tajyan v. Union of India

2016-10-19

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following prayers: “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4-10-2016 passed by CAT, Allahabad rejecting misc. application no. 99 of 2016 in O.A. No. 65 of 2016 (Annexure no. 13) to the writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the UPSC to declare the result of preliminary examination of the petitioners of Civil Services Examination 2016 and permit the petitioners to appear in mains and personality test. (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to appoint the petitioners to an appropriate service as per their option and ranking in Civil Service Examination, 2016.” 2. By the impugned order, CAT Allahabad has rejected Misc. Application filed by the petitioners in O.A. No. 65 of 2016. Petitioners, having been selected in the Indian Forest Services Examination held in the year 2014, were appointed in the year 2015 on probation. They have filed O.A. seeking declaration of unconstitutionality in relation to Rule 8(1) of the Indian Forest Services (Probation) Rules 1968, as the said Rule forbids a trainee from appearing in any Civil Services Examination. They obtained an interim order from the Tribunal, by which they were permitted to sit for the preliminary examination for Civil Services. Misc. Application, which has led to passing of the impugned order, was filed seeking declaration of the result of the preliminary examination and to permit them to sit for the main examination. By the impugned order, the said prayer has been rejected. 3. We heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel for the Union Public Service Commission. 4. The Tribunal has actually reasoned, inter-alia, that the petitioners have actually secured the order permitting them to sit for the preliminary examination when the respondents had not been heard. It is noticed by the Tribunal that the petitioners had sought extension of time for undergoing training in 2015. The case of discrimination was not found favour with. 5. Mr. 4. The Tribunal has actually reasoned, inter-alia, that the petitioners have actually secured the order permitting them to sit for the preliminary examination when the respondents had not been heard. It is noticed by the Tribunal that the petitioners had sought extension of time for undergoing training in 2015. The case of discrimination was not found favour with. 5. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel would actually submit that it was only the foundation course, which was exempted on application. This is not the training, which is contemplated in Rule 8(1). 6. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal would submit that the training, for which the extension was given at the request of the petitioners, will also count for probation. 7. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, learned Senior Counsel for the Union Public Service Commission, on instructions, would submit that if the Court directs, as per the order of the Commission, the result can be declared and that thereafter, if the petitioners apply as per law, they can also sit in the main examination. 8. Petitioners have already been permitted to sit in the preliminary examination by the Tribunal and grant of permission was made subject to the result of O.A. and O.A. has not yet been disposed of. If the relief sought for, namely, declaration of the result of the preliminary examination is not granted, the result will be that O.A. will be rendered infructuous. 9. Therefore, in the interest of justice, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: The impugned order will stand set aside and we direct respondent Commission (5th respondent) to declare the results of the petitioners for the preliminary examination forthwith. 10. We record the stand of the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission that the successful candidates, amongst the petitioners, will also be permitted to sit for the main examination provided they apply as per law. 11. We make it clear that the declaration of the result and the participation of the petitioners, who may be successful in the main examination, if they apply as per law, will all be subject to the final result of the O.A. 12. Since the main examination is to be held in the first week of December, 2016, and in view of the contention raised by Mr. Since the main examination is to be held in the first week of December, 2016, and in view of the contention raised by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General that the interest of justice requires that the matter should be decided at the earliest, we direct CAT Allahabad to dispose of O.A. No. 65 of 2016 at the earliest, at any rate on or before 18.11.2016. 13. Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself.