1999 JTR(SC) 655
1999 AIR(SC) 2137 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 1886 ; 1999 AllLJ 1551 ; 1999 3 AWC 2503 ; 1999 4 BomCR(SC) 320 ; 1999 2 CLR 584 ; 1999 5 JT 15 ; 1999 LIC 2358 ; 1999 3 Scale 746 ; 1999 5 SCC 180 ; 1999 SCC(L&S) 982 ; 1999 3 SCR 649 ; 1999 3 SCT 67 ; 1999 5 SLR 324 ; 1999 2 UJ 1058 ; 1999 2 UPLBEC 1633 ; 1999 WBLR 382 ; 1999 KHC 1214 ; 1999 6 Supreme 30
1999(6) Supreme 30
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.N. Kirpal & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Union of Public Service Commission -Appellant
versus
Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3177 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7051 of 1999)
Decided on 13-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.H. Parekh and Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate, S. Muralidhar, Ms. Neena Vaid, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.34
CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION RULES : R.3
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.2(g), S.17(a), S.17, S.14
(A) The Union Public Service Commission conducted the Central Services Examination 1998 with an approximate vacancy notification of 740, expressly subject to alteration, invoking provisions under the Consumer Protection Act read with Civil Services Examination Rules, Rule 3, and Civil Procedure Code, Section 34, to regulate the revision of vacancies and interview call limits. The statutory framework under Consumer Protection Act Sections 2(g), 17(a), 17, and 14, alongside Civil Services Examination Rules Rule 3, empowers the Commission to determine and revise the number of vacancies and the corresponding call-up of candidates for interview/viva voce without being bound by the initial approximate figure, ensuring procedural fairness and administrative discretion. The High Courts interim direction to call additional candidates beyond the revised quota was evaluated in light of these provisions.
(B) Key legal principles include: administrative discretion in revising vacancies post-examination; the non-binding nature of initial approximate vacancy notifications; the rule limiting interview calls to twice the revised number of vacancies; no mandatory requirement to interview all initially shortlisted candidates when vacancies are reduced; and the absence of prejudice to candidates due to revised call lists in a competitive examination framework.
Facts of the case:
The Union Public Service Commission notified an approximate vacancy of 740 for the Central Services Examination 1988, subject to change. After preliminary and main examinations, the vacancies were revised to 470 in March 1999, leading to the call of 940 candidates for interview. The respondents contended that 1480 candidates should have been called based on the initial notification, and the High Court directed that candidates ranked beyond 940 up to 1480 be called for interview, a direction challenged before this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Commission was entitled to revise the number of vacancies downward and that the rules do not require the entire selection process to be based on the original notified figure. Calling more than twice the revised number of vacancies could prejudice higher-ranked candidates, and the Commissions decision to limit interviews to 940 candidates was valid. The interim order of the High Court directing the call of additional candidates was not sustainable.
Issues:
Whether the Union Public Service Commission could revise the number of vacancies downward after the main examination and limit interview calls to twice the revised figure without causing prejudice to candidates; whether the High Court had the authority to direct the call of additional candidates beyond the revised quota.
Ratio Decidendi:
In a competitive examination, the Commissions statutory discretion to revise vacancies allows the interview call list to be based on the final revised number, limited to twice that number, and the initial approximate vacancy figure does not bind the process; no rule mandates completion of interviews on the basis of the original vacancy figure, and varying vacancies post-examination does not prejudice candidates who remain eligible for subsequent attempts.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and no order as to costs is made.
(A) The Union Public Service Commission conducted the Central Services Examination 1998 with an approximate vacancy notification of 740, expressly subject to alteration, invoking provisions under the Consumer Protection Act read with Civil Services Examination Rules, Rule 3, and Civil Procedure Code, Section 34, to regulate the revision of vacancies and interview call limits. The statutory framework under Consumer Protection Act Sections 2(g), 17(a), 17, and 14, alongside Civil Services Examination Rules Rule 3, empowers the Commission to determine and revise the number of vacancies and the corresponding call-up of candidates for interview/viva voce without being bound by the initial approximate figure, ensuring procedural fairness and administrative discretion. The High Courts interim direction to call additional candidates beyond the revised quota was evaluated in light of these provisions.
(B) Key legal principles include: administrative discretion in revising vacancies post-examination; the non-binding nature of initial approximate vacancy notifications; the rule limiting interview calls to twice the revised number of vacancies; no mandatory requirement to interview all initially shortlisted candidates when vacancies are reduced; and the absence of prejudice to candidates due to revised call lists in a competitive examination framework.
Facts of the case:
The Union Public Service Commission notified an approximate vacancy of 740 for the Central Services Examination 1988, subject to change. After preliminary and main examinations, the vacancies were revised to 470 in March 1999, leading to the call of 940 candidates for interview. The respondents contended that 1480 candidates should have been called based on the initial notification, and the High Court directed that candidates ranked beyond 940 up to 1480 be called for interview, a direction challenged before this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Commission was entitled to revise the number of vacancies downward and that the rules do not require the entire selection process to be based on the original notified figure. Calling more than twice the revised number of vacancies could prejudice higher-ranked candidates, and the Commissions decision to limit interviews to 940 candidates was valid. The interim order of the High Court directing the call of additional candidates was not sustainable.
Issues:
Whether the Union Public Service Commission could revise the number of vacancies downward after the main examination and limit interview calls to twice the revised figure without causing prejudice to candidates; whether the High Court had the authority to direct the call of additional candidates beyond the revised quota.
Ratio Decidendi:
In a competitive examination, the Commissions statutory discretion to revise vacancies allows the interview call list to be based on the final revised number, limited to twice that number, and the initial approximate vacancy figure does not bind the process; no rule mandates completion of interviews on the basis of the original vacancy figure, and varying vacancies post-examination does not prejudice candidates who remain eligible for subsequent attempts.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and no order as to costs is made.
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. The question involved is as to how many candidates should be called for interview/viva voce by the Union of Public Service Commission (for short the U.P.S.C.) for recruitment to the Central Services.
3. An advertisement was published by the U.P.S.C. which was to the effect that for the Central Services Examination to be conducted in 1988 the approximate number of vacancies would be 740. It was clearly stipulated therein that this figure of 740 was subject to alteration.
4. Preliminary examination was held in May 1998 and the result was declared in July 1998. Those who were successful, then took part in the main examination which was conducted in October/December 1998. The case of the appellant is that in March 1999, for the reasons stated in its affidavit in reply in the High Court to which we need not advert to at this stage, the number of vacancies were finally determined to be at a figure of 470. It is an admitted case that the number of candidates who are called for interview/ viva voce test are not more than twice the number of vacancies which are required to be filled. In view of this on 26th of March, 1999 results were declared and 864 candidates who were successful, were called for interview.
5. It is thereafter that the present respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench with a contention that 1480 candidates should have been called for interview and not 940. The basis was the number of vacancies which were finally notified were 740 and, therefore, 1480 candidates should have been called for interview. The Tribunal declined to give any relief. Thereafter a writ petition was filed and by an interim order the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed that the respondents, who are not the first 940 candidates but their position in the order of merit is lower down till 1480, should also be called for interview Liberty was granted to the appellant herein to call for interview even those candidates who were higher in rank than the respondents but lower in position than 940. It is this direction which is challenged before us.
6. Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 1998 states that the number of vacancies to be filled on the result of the examination will be specified in the notice issued by the Commission. In the notice which was issued it was stated, as already noted, that the number of vacancies was only an approximate number which was subject to change. There is no rule which has been brought to our notice which prohibits the change in the number of vacancies which are once notified. Indeed it is not necessary or incumbent upon the Government to fill-up all the vacancies which are notified even if candidates have been selected. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that even though the number of vacancies could be changed, this could only have been done after the candidates have been interviewed on the basis that the number of vacancies was 740. The submission is, if this is not done the candidates will lose one chance.
7. We are unable to agree with this contention. Once it is considered, and in our opinion rightly so, that the number of vacancies to be filled could be reduced then the Rules do not stipulate that the entire process of examination must be completed, including the conduct of the interview/viva voce test, on the basis of original number of vacancies which were notified. When before the declaration of the result of the main examination, the number of vacancies have been determined then it was only proper that candidates who are twice the number of revised vacancies are called for interview and not more. It is to be borne in mind that this is a competitive examination with the number of vacancies being 470 only, 940 candidates were required to be called for interview. By calling more than this number may result in prejudice to one or more of the candidates who were in the position of 940 or above. For example, it is possible that a candidate at Serial No. 941, who is not entitled to be called for interview, if he is permitted to be called for interview, may secure higher marks in the viva voce test and he oust those candidates who were higher in rank to him in the merit list. The High Court, in our opinion, was not right in permitting more than 940 candidates being called for interview/ viva voce.
8. From the facts enumerated hereinabove it is difficult to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that any prejudice will be caused to the candidates. It is clear that in March 1999 the final result of the main examination had been declared and it was notified to the candidates concerned as to how many of them have been called for interview. Those who were unsuccessful could, in accordance with the Rules, take the subsequent examination. It can happen that even where some of the candidates have been called for interview they may still not take a chance and may sit in the examination for the year 1999 because they may not be sure whether ultimately, after the viva voce test, they would be selected. Varying of vacancies during the course of the examination does not, to our mind, cause any prejudice to the candidates.
9. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order of the High Court dated 29th April, 1999 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
***********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Union of Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors., 1999(6) Supreme 30
00029