URISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos
5439 52 of 1990 etc
From the Judgments and Orders dated 20819904101990 15101990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench Delhi in OA Nos
1023 309 1705 1058  1054 of 1989 and 1072 1074 1162 1161 1122 1064 536 1230 of 1990 and MP No 1354 of 1990 in OA No 309 of 1989
PP Rao AK Behere AK Sahu CN Sreekumar Gopal Subramanium Madhan Panikhar Mrs Vimla Sinha Gopal Singh Salman Khurshid Mrs CM Chopra AM Khanwilkar and Mrs VD Khanna for 58 the Appellants
Kapil Sibal Additional Solicitor General Ms Kamini Jaiswal and CVS Rao for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN J
The above batch of Civil Appeals in which common questions of law arise is preferred by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgments dated 2081990 4101990 and 5101990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi hereinafter referred to as Tribunal rendered in various affiliated groups of original applica tions OAs upholding the validity of the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules hereinafter referred to as CSE Rules  introduced by Notification No 13016486 AIS1 dated 13121986 Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part 1 Section 1
Be it noted that similar notification has beenis being issued each year for the general information of the candidates setting down the terms and conditions eligibility etc
to sit for the Civil Service Examination of the concerned year
While a substantial number of OAs filed before the Tribunal at Delhi were pending a similar number of analo gous OAs filed before the Benches of Administrative Tribu nals at Patna Allahabad Chandigarh Jabalpur Hyderabad Jodhpur and Eranakulam were transferred to the Tribunal at Delhi since common questions of law arose for determination in all the OAs
The Tribunal rendered its main judgment in OANo
20689 Alok Kumar vs Union of India  Ors
and 61 other OAs in which the facts appear to be common
The other judgments were passed on the basis of the conclusions arrived in OA No 20689 and the connected batch of OAs
Since the Tribu nal has set out only the facts in the case of Alok Kurnar OA No 20689 treating it as a main application and illustrative of the questions raised we would like to briefly indicate the facts of A1ok kumar s case so that the impelling circumstances which led to the filing of these appeals and the common questions of law involved may be understood in the proper perspective in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal
In this context it may be noted that though no appeal has been filed against the Order in OANo
20689 we are given to understand that Alok Kumar who agitated his similar claim along with two others who were all allocated to Group A  Services IRPS in OANo
10711990 has 59 preferred Civil Appeal No 5469 of 1990 against the judgment in the said OA No 1072 of 1990
Shri Alok Kumar filed his application in December 1986 to sit for the preliminary examination in 1987
The prelimi nary examination was held by the Union Public Service Com mission  UPSC for short  in June 1987 and the result was declared in July 1987
The CSE Main Examination was held by the UPSC in November 1987
The interviews took place in  April 1988 and the final results were declared by the UPSC in June 1988
The applicant Alok Kumar was selected for appointment to Central Service Group A  post
A commu nication to this effect was sent to him on 30888 in which Alok Kumar s attention was drawn to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules 1987 pointing out that if he intended to appear in the Civil Services Main Examination in 1988 he would not be allowed to join the Probationary Training along with the candidates of 1987 group but would only be allowed to join the Probationary Training along with the candidates who would be appointed on the basis of the CSE 1988
The said letter also indicated that in the matter of seniority he would be placed below all the candidates who would join training without postponement
Therefore he was required to furnish the information about his appearing in the CSE Main 1988 to the concerned cadre controlling authorities
He was further informed that only on receipt of the above information the concerned cadre controlling authority would permit him to abstrain from the Probationary Training
The Joint Director Estt
G R Ministry of Railways Railway Board informed Alok Kumar about his selection for appoint ment to the Indian Railway Personnel Service and that the training would commence from 631989 and that he should report for training at the Railway Staff College Vadodara
Further he was informed that he once joined the Probationary Training along with 1987 batch he would not be eligible for consideration of appointment on the basis of subsequent CSE conducted by the UPSC
The case of Alok Kumar was that he did not intend to appear in the next CSE and he had already appeared for the CSE 1988 even before he received the offer of appointment dated 211989
He was then intimated that if he had already joined the Probationary Training along with 1987 batch he would not be eligible for consideration for appointment on the basis of subsequent CSE conducted by the UPSC
Besides the main reliefs Alok Kumar had prayed for an interim order to join and complete the current Probationary Training without being compelled to sign the undertaking sought to be obtained from him subject to final orders in the OA
The Division Bench of the Tribunal issued an interim order as prayed for by Alok Kumar allowing him to join the requisite training for 60 the service to which he had been allocated and allowed him to appear in the interview as and when he was called by the UPSC on the basis of 1988 Examination
The respondents filed their reply explaining the circum stances under which the second proviso was introduced to rule 4 of CSE Rules its scope and ambit and refuted all the intentions raised by Alok Kumar challenging the legality and constitutionality of the impugned proviso
The Tribunal by its detailed and considered judgment has rendered its conclusions thus Having considered the matter in the above bunch of cases we have come to the following conclusions 1
The 2nd proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules is valid
The provisions of Rule 17 of the above Rules are also valid
The above provisions are not hit by the provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India
The restrictions imposed by the 2nd proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules are not bad in law
i The letter issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions dated 30th August 1988 and in particular paragraph 3 thereof and paragraph 4 of the letter dated 211989 issued by the Cadre Controlling Authority Ministry of Railways Railway Board are held to be bad in law and unenforceable
Similar letters issued on different dates by other Cadre controlling Authorities are also unenforceable
ii A candidate who has been allocated to the IPS or to a Central Services Group A  may be allowed to sit at the next Civil Services Examination provided he is within the permis sible age limit without having to resign from the service to which he has been allocated nor would he lose his original seniority in the service to which he is allocated if he is unable to take training with his own Batch
Those applicants who have been allcoated to the IPS or any Central Services Group A  can have one more attempt in the subsequent Civil Services Examination for the Services in 61 dicated in rule 17 of the CSE Rules
The Cadre Controlling Authorities can grant one opportunity to such candidates
All those candidates who have been allocat ed to any of the Central Services Group A  or IPS and who have appeared in Civil Services Main Examination of a subsequent year under the interim orders of the Tribunal for the Civil Services Examinations 1988 or 1989 and have succeeded are to be given benefit of their success subject to the provisions of Rule 17 of the CSE Rules
But this examina tion will not be available for any subsequent Civil Services Examination
In the result therefore the Applications succeed only in part viz quashing of the 3rd paragraph of the letter dated 3081988 and 4th paragraph of the letter dated 2nd January 1989 and similar paragraphs in the letters issued to the applicants by other cadre controlling authorities
Further a direction is given to the respondents that all those candidates who have been allocated to any of the Central Services Group A  or IPS and who have appeared in Civil Services Main Examination 1988 or 1989 under the interim orders of the Tribunal and are within the permissible age limit and have succeeded are to be given benefit of their success subject to the provisions of Rule 17 of the CSE Rules
The OAs are dismissed on all other counts
 On the basis of the above directions given in paragraphs 5ii 6 and 7 we gave some interim directions on 7121990 which are annexed to this judgment as Annexure A 
Several learned counsel appeared for the respective parties and advanced their submissions interpreting the rules and cited a plethora of decisions in support of their respective cases
Whilst Mr PP Rao senior counsel as sisted by Mr CN Sreekumar and others Mr Gopal Subrama niam Mrs CM Chopra Mr Gopal Singh and Mr AM Khan wilkar appeared for the appellants in the various batches of cases the learned Additional Solicitor General Mr Kapil Sibal assisted by Ms Kamini Jaiswal and Mr CVS Rao appeared on behalf of the respondentsUnion of India  Others
The common substantial questions of law propounded and posed for consideration in all the above appeals are 1 Whether the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules 1986 is invalid for the reason that it puts an embargo restricting the candi dates who are seeking to improve their posi tion vis a 62 vis their career in Government service 2 Whether the second proviso under chal lenge travels beyond the intent of the main rule namely Rule 4 of the CSE Rules 3 Whether the proviso to Rule 17 of the CSE Rules is invalid on the ground that it places restriction on candidates who are seeking to improve their position vis a vis their career 4 Whether the said second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules is ultra vires to clause iii a of Regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Competitive Examina tion Regulations 1955 for short Regula tions  inasmuch as the power to notify excep tions does not include the power to make candidates ineligible who are otherwise eligi ble in terms of clauses i ii and iii of Regulation 4 5 Whether the said proviso which is an administrative instruction introduced by the impugned Notification is arbitrary and irra tional having no nexus with the object of recruitment to the post of Civil Services 6 Whether the impugned second proviso is illegal since it makes a discrimination be tween the successful candidates of Central Service Group A  and Group B  as no embargo is placed restricting the candidates of Group B  service as in the case of Group A  service and whether the reasons given by the Government to justify the introduction of the impugned proviso have any rational nexus to the object of the scheme of recruitment to the All India Services orand whether such reasons are arbitrary unfair and unjust 7 Whether the restriction imposed on the number of attempts in pursuance of the im pugned proviso in the case of Scheduled CastesScheduled Tribes candidates who were since then availing any number of attempts subject to the eligibility of age limit is unjustifiable and illegal and amounts to deprivation of the right conferred on them by the Constitution of India 8 Whether the reasons given by the Govern ment to justify the introduction of the im pugned proviso have any rational 63 nexus to the object of the scheme of recruit ment to the All lndia Services orand whether such reasons are arbitrary unfair and unjust 9 Whether the impugned second proviso is suffering from the vice of hostile discrimina tion and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Recruitment to All India and Central Services Brief Histo ry and Present position Before entering into an extensive investigation and fullfledged discussion on the questions formulated above we feel that in order to have a more comprehensive study of the development of the civil service in India a brief history of the past system of recruitment to All India and Central Services based on the then existing mode of selection and the development of the present scheme of examination and method of recruitment till the introduction of the impugned proviso to rule 4 of CSE Rules is necessary so as to have the background of the entire system and to assimilate the compelling necessity warranting the introduction of the new proviso
The Indian Civil Service ICS Examination was held only in England by the British Civil Service Commission till 1922 and thereafter in India
Four years later the newly formed Public Service Commission India began to conduct the ICS Examination on behalf of British Civil Service Commission and this position continued until 1937 when the Public Service Commission India was replaced by the Federal Public Service Commission under the Government of India Act 1935
Thereafter the Indian Civil Service Examination in India was held by the Federal Public Service Commission independent of the British Civil Service Commission
After 1943 recruitments to the Indian Civil Service Indian Police besides the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and allied services were suspended
In 1947 a combined examina tion was introduced for recruitment to the Indian Adminis trative Service Indian Police Service and non technical Central Services
Between the years 1947 50 a combined competitive examination was held once a year for recruitment for IAS IFS IPS and non technical Central Services
After independence new services known as the Indian Administra tive Services IAS and Indian Police Service IPS were established as All India Services
In order to meet the country s requirement for diplomatic personnel another service known as Indian Foreign Service IFS was estab lished
The Service Commission was redesignated as the Union Public Service Commission in 1950 when the Constitution came into force
64 While it was so the UPSC appointed a Committee in February 1974 under the chairmanship of Dr DS Kothari to make recommendations for further improvement in the system having regard to the needs of various services and accord ingly the said Committee undertook a painstaking research and carried on a comprehensive and analytical study and thorough examination of the various aspects of the problems connected with the reform in the existing examination and selection by going in great depth and detail and submitted its report on March 20 1976 after taking into consideration of the fact of frequent receipt of complaints from the training centres and the data collected and made its recom mendations in evaluating the scheme of civil services by tracing its birth and breadth of the upper tier of this administrative machinery covering its entire field
On the recommendations of the Kothari Committee the current scheme of Civil Services Examination was introduced from 1979 as per which the Civil Services Examination conducted by the UPSC has been and is catering to the All India Services viz IAS IFS and IPS and 16 Central Group A  Services and 8 Group B  Services
In order to be eligible to compete at the examination a candidate must satisfy the conditions of eligibility name ly nationality age and requisite qualifications as envis aged under Regulation 4 of the IAS Appointment by Competitive Examination Regulation 1955
In addition to the above qualifications one more condition of eligibility is added under Regulation 4 iii a substituted vide Department of Personnel and AR notification No 11028178 A1S 1 A dated 30121978 according to which unless covered by any of the exceptions that may from time to time be notified by the Central Government in this behalf every candidate appearing for the examination after 1st January 1979 who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted three attempts at the examination
In other words the number of attempts a candidate can appear is also made as one of the conditions of eligibility to sit for the IAS competitive examination
It may be pointed out in this connection that by a subse quent notification dated 23111981 Regulation 4 iii a was further clarified that the appearance of a candidate at the examination will be deemed to be an attempt at the examination irrespective of his disqualification or cancel lation as the case may be of his candidature
An explanation is added to this explaining an attempt at a preliminary examination shall be deemed to be an attempt at the examina tion within the meaning of this rule
65 Civil Services Examination Present Scheme From the CSE held in 1979 each eligible candidate is permitted three attempts at the examination
This restric tion on the number of attempts does not apply to the candi dates belonging to SCST and other specified categories as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time under Rule 6b of the CSE Rules but subject to the relaxa tion in the upper age limit of those candidates
The scheme of selection of candidates for the Civil Services consists of three sequential stages each making a significant and specific contribution to the total process
They are 1 Preliminary examination serving as a screening test 2 The main examination which intended to assess the overall intellectual traits and depth of understanding of candidates and 3 The interview viva voce test
Hermer Finer in his text book under the caption
The Theory and Practice of Modern Government states The problem of selection for character is still the pons asinorum of recruitment to the public services everywhere
The British Civil Service experiments with the interview
 The purpose of viva voce test for the ICS Examination in 1935 could be best understood from the following extract of the Civil Service Commission s pamphlet Viva voce the examination will be in mat ters of general interest it is intended to test the candidate s alertness intelligence and intellectual outlook
The candidate will be accorded an opportunity of furnishing the record of his life and education 
 It is apposite in this connection to have reference to an excerpt from the United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice which reads thus   the written papers permit an assess ment of culture and intellectual competence
This interview permits an assessment of quali ties of character which written papers ignore it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities
 66 This Court in Lila Dhar vs State of Rajasthan and Oth ers 1981 4 SCC 159 while expressing its view about the importance and significance of the two tests namely the written and interview has observed thus The written examination assess the man s intellect and the interview test the man himself and the twain shall meet  for a proper selection
AGE LIMIT Coming to the eligibility of age it was initially fixed at 21 to 26 years and then reduced in 1948 to 21 to 25 years
In the following year the age range was further reduced to 21 to 24 years except for the Indian Railway Traffic Service for which it continued to be 21 to 25 years upto 1955
The lower age limit for IPS was reduced to 20 years in the year 1951 keeping the upper age limit at 24 years
The upper age limit for the Indian Railway Traffic Service was reduced to 24 in 1955
The age limits for all other services remained at 21 to 24 years
Thereafter though the Public Services Qualification for Recruitment Committee appointed by the Government of India in 1955 recommended the reduction of the age range from 21 24 to 21 23 years the Government did not agree with that recom mendation and kept the prescribed age limit of 2021 to 24 years unaltered
The Kothari Committee recommended that a candidate should not be less than 21 years of age and not more than 26 years on the 1st July of the year in which the candidate appears at the examination with the usual relaxa tion of upper age limit for SCST and other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time
Howev er the Committee did not recommend lower age limit of 20 years for the IPS as was permitted
The Government while not completely agreeing with Kothari s Committee recommenda tions in regard to some aspects inclusive of age limit while implementing the recommendations increased upper age limit to 28 years keeping the lower age limit of 21 years unal tered
Thus the age limit of 21 28 years was in operation from 1979 to 1987
Then the Government re considered this issue and reduced the upper age limit to 26 years
During the course of the hearing of these appeals it has been stated at the bar that the Government of India in FebruaryMarch 1990 amended the CSE Rules and increased the upper age limit from 26 years to 28 and then to 31 years for the CSE to be conducted by the UPSC
Now by notification No 130181090 AIS I dated 5th January 1991 issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Deptt
of Personnel and Training published in the Gazette of India in Part I Sec
I the age eligibility for appearing at the examination in 1991 is that the candidate must have attained the age of 21 67 years and must not have attained 28 years on 1st August 1991 ie he must have been born not earlier than 2nd August 1963 and not later than 1st August 1970 but subject to the relaxation in the upper age limit to SCST and other catego ries specified under Rule 6b of the CSE Rules
Number of Permissible Attempts Regarding the number of attempts a candidate could make the Public Services Qualifications for Recruitment Committee in 1955 recommended that in order to identify the best candidates the number of attempts at the combined examination should be limited to two by reducing the age limit to 21 23 years
The Government accepted the recommen dation regarding restriction of the number of attempts to two instead of three but provided that these were to be counted separately for the following categories of services Category I IAS and IFS Category II IPS and Police Service Class II of the Union Territories Category III Central Services Class I and Class II In view of the acceptance of the above recommendations from 1961 onwards the IAS etc
examination became in effect three examinations
Since the restriction on the number of chances were related not to the examination as a whole but individual categories theoretically a candidate could take as many chances as the age limit would permit
Thereafter in 1972 the age limit was raised to 26 years and the reduction of attempts from three to two was not implemented following the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commis sion
In fact since 1973 candidates were permitted to make three attempts for each of the three categories of services within the permissible age range
It may be stated in this connection that the Kothari Committee had recommended only two attempts for the Civil Services Examination for not only the general candidates but also candidates belonging to the SCST but the Government did not agree with these recommen dations and permitted three attempts to general candidates and did not impose any restriction on the number of attempts on the candidates belonging to SCST but of course subject to their upper age limit
It will be worthwhile in this context to refer to the Report of the Committee to review the Scheme of Civil Services Examination under the 68 chairmanship of Dr Satish Chandra appointed by the UPSC on 1291988 to review and evaluate the scheme of selection to the higher civil services introduced from 1979 in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection under the Chairmanship of Dr DS Kothari and to make recommendations for further improvement of the system and the relevant excerpt of the report touch ing on this aspect is as follows We therefore recommend that for the general candidates the permissible number of attempts for the Civil Services Examination should continue to be three
For the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes these should be limited to six
 We are referring to the report of the committee chaired by Dr Satish Chandra only for the purpose of showing the views expressed by it regarding the permissible number of attempts for the CSE that a candidate could make though this report was not available at the time of introduction of the impugned proviso
It may be stated that the Government of India has decided to increase the number of attempts from 3 to 4 for the Civil Services Examination 1990
Reference may also be made to the notification dated 5th January 1991 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training by which Rule 4 was amended to the fact that every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted attempts at the examination Salient Features of the New Scheme Thus the entire framework of the Civil services system have under gone a metamorphosis under the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 and thereafter under our present Constitution of India
Further pursuant to the recommenda tions made by various Committees as seen earlier there has been radical change in the system of recruitment to the CSE regard to the scheme of examination mode of selection the number of attempts and the eligibility of age limit since such a system was introduced It is clear from the discussion that the totality of the above review on the entire system which system is a legacy of and modelled on the Bri one and a comprehensive survey on the different aspects of the recruitment for the higher civil services manifestly show that this system did not appear suddenly like a dues ex machina  created by the legislative test but 69 evolved in the direction of political objectivity and under went a long process of gradual transformation and the role and functions of this higher civil services in India after the advent of independence irrefragably play an important and crucial role not only in providing an element of common ality in administration in our parliamentary democracy but also in accelerating socio economic development of our country in the context of our constitutional objective of growth with the social justice
The present time cycle of the CSE is such that it takes almost a year from the date of the preliminary examination to the commencement of the final results in that the prelim inary examination is held in the month of June and the result of the preliminary examination is announced by the UPSC at the end of July
The Main examination is held in the first week of November the result of which is usually announced by the third week of March and the interviews begin in the third week of April to the end of May and the results are announced in the month of June
The merit list of successful candidates is prepared on the basis of their aggregate marks in the Main Examination and interview test and then the successful candidates are selected and allotted to different services based on their ranks and preference
The top rankers in the merit list join the IAS or IFS and then the IPS
The candidates who get into the merit list with low position are brought and classified either under Group A  or Group B  as the case may be but having regard to their ranks in the order of merit and the selection of candidates in Group A  or Group B  is based within the zone of eligibility
It may be noted that out of total 27 servicesposts as per notification dated 30121989 the first three namely IAS IFS and IPS are All India Services
Of the rest from IV to XIX are Central Services Group A  and the remaining XX to XXVII are Group B  services
For all these services the recruitment is made by combined competitive CSE
Since the pleadings in all the appeals are substantially of the same paradigm and the issues of considerable impor tance raised are homogeneous and as the principal arguments were advanced in the same line except with some slight variation with regard to some particular issues relating to certain appeals and also the reply was commonly made we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judg ment
70 We may now in the above background of the history of the scheme of the Civil Services proceed to consider the var ious contentions advanced by the respective parties on the validity of the impugned second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules and for that purpose we in order to have a proper understanding and appreciation of the scope object ambit and intent of the impugned proviso shall re produce the relevant Rules 4 8 and 17 and Regulation 4iii a of the IAS Appointment by Competitive Examination Regula tions 1955
CSE RULES Rule 4 Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted three attempts at the examina tion irrespective of the number of attempts he has already availed of at the IAS etc
Examination held in previous year
The re striction shall be effective from the Civil Services Examination held in 1979
Any at tempts made at the Civil Services Prelimi nary Examination held in 1979 and onwards will count as attempts for this purpose Provided that this restriction on the number of attempts will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candi dates who are otherwise eligible Provided further that a candidate who on the basis of the results of the previous Civil Services Examination had been allocated to the IPS or Central Services Group A  but who expressed his intention to appear in the next Civil Services Main Examination for competing for IAS IFS IPS or Central Serv ices Group A  and who was permitted to abstain from the probationary training in order to so appear shall be eligible to do so subject to the provisions of Rule 17
If the candidate is allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil Services Main Examina tion he shall join either that Service or the Service to which he was allocated on the basis of the previous Civil Services Examination failing which his allocation to the service based on one or both examination as the case may be shall stand cancelled and notwith standing anything contained in Rule 8 a candidate who accepts allocation to a Service and is appointed to a service shall not be eligible to appear again in the Civil Services Examination unless he has first resigned from the Service
71 NOTE 1
An attempt at a preliminary examination shall be deemed to be in attempt of the Exami nation
If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in the preliminary Examination he shall be deemed to have made an attempt at the examination
Notwithstanding the disqualificationcan cellation of candidature the fact of appear ance of the candidate at the examination will count as an attempt
Rule 8 A candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Service or the Indian Foreign Service on results of an earlier examination before the commencement of this examination and continues to be a member of that service will not be eligible to compete at this examination
In case a candidate has been appointed to the IASIFS after the Preliminary Examination of this examination but before the Main Examina tion of this examination and heshe shall also not be eligible to appear in the Main Examina tion of this examination notwithstanding that heshe has qualified in the Preliminary Exami nation
Also provided that if a candidate is appointed to IASIFS after the commencement of the Main Examination but before the result thereof and continues to be a member of that service heshe shall not be considered for appointment to any servicepost on the basis of the re sults of this examination
Rule 17 Due consideration will be given at the time of making appointments on the results of the examination to the preferences ex pressed by a candidate for various services at the time of his application
The appointment to various services will also be governed by the RulesRegulations in force as applicable to the respective Services at the time of appointment
72 Provided that a candidate who has been ap proved for appointment to Indian Police Serv iceCentral Service Group A  mentioned in Col 2 below on the results of an earlier examination will be considered only for ap pointment in services mentioned against that service in Col 3 below on the results of this examination
Service to which approved Service for which No for appointment eligible to compete 1 2 3 1
Indian Police Service
IAS IFS and Central Services Group 2
Central Services Group A  IASIFS and IPS Provided further that a candidate who is appointed to a Central Service Group B  on the results of an earlier examination will be considered only for appointment to IAS IFS IPS and Central Services Group A 
IAS Appointment by Competitive Examination Regulations 1955 Regulation 4 Conditions of Eligibility In order to be eligible to compete at the examination a candidate must satisfy the following conditions namely i Nationality     ii Age       iii Educational Qualifications   iii a Attempts at the examination Unless covered by any of the exceptions that may from time to time be notified by the Central Gov ernment in this behalf every candidate ap pearing for the examination after 1st January 1979 who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted three attempts at the examination
73 and the appearance of a candidate at the examination will be deemed to be an attempt at the examination irrespective of his disquali fication or cancellation as the case may be of his candidature
Explanation An attempt at a preliminary examination shall be deemed to be an attempt at the examination within the meaning of this rule
questions 1 to 6 At the threshold we will take up the main question about the validity of the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules of 1986 which proviso is an additional one to the first proviso to Rule No 4 and which applies only to the IPS and Central Services Group A  selectees
This provi so consists of two parts of which the first part enumerates certain conditions on the fulfillment of which alone an allottee to IPS or Central Services Group A  on the basis of the results of the previous CSE will become eligible to re appear in the next CSE Main to improve his prospect with the hope of getting better position next year and joining in one of the more preferred services namely IAS IFS IPS or Central Services Group A  subject to the condi tions enumerated in Rule 17 of CSE Rules
As per the first part of the proviso the prerequisite conditions which are sine qua non are as follows A Candidate who on the basis of the results of the previous CSE i should have been allocated to the IPS or Central Services Group A  ii The said candidate should have expressed his intention to appear in the next Civil Service Main Examination for competing for IAS IFS IPS or Central Services Group A  subject to the provisions of Rule 17 iii The said candidate should have been permitted to abstain from the Probationary Training in order to so appear
The conditions in the second part of the proviso are as follows 1 If a candidate who is permitted to appear in the next CSE Main on fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in the first part of this proviso is allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil Service Main Exami nation he should either join 74 that service or the service to which he has already been allocated on the basis of the previous CSE 2 If the candidate fails to join either of the services as mentioned in the first condi tion of this second part then his allocation to the service based on one or both examina tions as the case may be shall stand can celled and 3 Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8 a candidate a who accepts allocation to the service and b who is appointed to a service shall not be eligible to appear again in CSE unless he has first resigned from the service
The sum and substance of the above proviso is that a candidate who has already been allocated to the IPSCentral Services Group A  and who in order to improve his efficacy of selection to higher civil service expresses his inten tion to appear in the next CSE Main for competing for IAS IFS IPS or Central Services Group A  and who has been permitted to abstain from the Probationary Training in order to do so will become eligible to appear in the next CSE Main but subject to the provisions of Rule 17 and that the said candidate when allocated to a service on the basis of the next Civil Services Main Examination can either join that service or the service to which he has already been allocated on the basis of the previous CSE and that if he fails to join either of the services his allocation based on one or both the examinations as the case may be will stand cancelled
Further notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8 a candidate who accepts allocation to a service and is appointed to that service shall not be eligi ble to appear again in the CSE unless he has first resigned from the service
In other words a candidate failing within the ambit of this proviso can appear in the CSE for all the permitted attempts subject to his age limit if he intends to appear again in the CSE provided he first resigns from the service which he accepts on allocation and to which he is appointed
The restrictionembargo contained in Rule 17 is if a candidate has been approved for appointment to IPS and expresses his intention to appear in the CSE Main for higher civil service the services for which he is eligible to compete are IAS IFS and Central Services Group A 
Similarly a candidate who has been approved for appointment to the Central Services Group A  and expresses his inten tion to appear in the next CSE Main the services to which he will be eligible to compete are IAS IFS and IPS
The second proviso to Rule 17 provides that a candidate who is appointed to a Central Services Group B  on the results of an earlier examination will be considered for appointment to IAS IFS 75 IPS and Central Services Group A 
The impugned second proviso to Rule 4 as we have al ready pointed out has been introduced by notification No 13016486 AIS I dated 13121986
The circumstances which necessitated and compelled the introduction of the above second proviso to Rule 4 was due to the receipts of various representations and frequent com plaints from the Academies and Training Insti tutes by the Government informing that the candidates who taking advantage of the oppor tunity of mobility from one service to anoth er were intending to appear in the next CSE Main in the hope of getting a better posi tion and in a more preferred service were neglecting their required training programmes whereunder they had to undergo specialised training and acquire the necessary potential to perform their tasks in the service to which they have been allocated and for which train ing the Government incurs huge expenditure
Therefore the Government in order to overcome the problem of indiscipline amongst the proba tioners undergoing training requested the kothari committee for making a comprehensive survey on the different aspects of the re cruitment scheme and to submit a report with its recommendations on the recruitment policy and selection methods so that the candidates who are selected and allocated to a service and sent for training may not take enmass leave for preparing and appearing in the next CSE by neglecting and pretermitting their training programmes and thereby creating a vacuum in the service for considerable time
The said kothari committee after deeply examining this serious problem submitted its report the relevant part of which is as follows 359
It may further be observed that the existing system which permits that candidates qualifying for and joining the police or the Central Services may appear the Civil Serv ices Examination to improve their career opportunities has come in for serious criti cism from the National Academy of Administra tion and the respective employing departments
They complain that such probationers neglect their training at both the Academy and the Departmental Training Institutions until they exhaust the admissible number of chances
The present practice obviously is not desirable
The 76 number of such cases would be very small with the proposed restriction on the total number of attempts permitted to a candidate
Even so we think it wrong that the very first thing a young person should do in entering public service is to ignore his obligations to the service concerned and instead spend his time and energy in preparation for re appearing at the UPSC examination to improve his prospect
This sets a bad example and should be discour aged
We recommend that commencing from the 1977 examination candidates once appointed to the All India or Central Services Class I should not be permitted to re appear at a subsequent examination without resigning from service
On introduction of Phase II of the Civil Services Examination Scheme candidates joining the Foundation Course will not be permitted to re appear at the Main Examina tion   The Thirteenth Report of the Estimates Committee 1985 86 also submitted its report on this aspect of the matter observing The committee urge upon the Government to review their decision regarding allowing the probationers to reappear in the Civil Services Examination to improve their prospects
If it is still considered necessary to allow this the Committee suggest that it may be limited to only one chance after a person enters a Civil service
 The Central Government after considering the recommenda tions of the above Committees regarding allowing probation ers allocated to Civil Services to appear in the next CSE Main addressed the UPSC to initiate a review of the new system of CSE in pursuance of the recommendations of the Estimates Committee and thereafter a meeting of all the cadre controlling authorities was convened by the Government and based on the consensus arrived at the meeting Rules 4 and 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules were amended by inserting the new provisos
In this regard it will be worthwhile to refer to Arti cle 51 A in Part IV A under the caption Fundamental Duties  added by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act 1976 in accordance with the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee
The said Article contains a mandate of the Con stitution that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to do the various things specified in Clauses a to j of which clause j commands that it is the duty of every citizen of India to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement 77 In our view the effort taken by the Government in giving utmost importance to the training programme of the selectees so that this higher civil service being the top most service of the country is not wasted and does not become fruitless during the training period is in consonance with the provisions of Article 51 A j
The Constitution of India has laid down some basic principles relating to public services in Part XIV entitled Services under the Union and the State  which has two Chapters namely chapter I on Services covering Articles 308 to 314 of which Article 314 is now repealed by the Twentyeighth Amendment Act 1972 and Chapter II on Public Service Commissions covering Articles 315 to 323
We feel that it is not necessary to deal with the constitutional provisions relating to the executive power of the Union under Article 53 of the Constitution or the extent of the executive power of the Union under Article 73 of the Consti tution or recruitment and condition of service of persons serving the Union or the State as contemplated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India since it is not the case of the appellants that either the introduction of the proviso is in violation of any of the provisions of the constitution or the proviso suffers for want of jurisdiction or by im proper and irregular exercise of jurisdiction
However incidentally Mrs Chopra urged that the second proviso is bad since the authorities have stepped out of the constitu tional limits in issuing the notification inserting the impugned proviso and that it has not been placed before the Houses of the Parliament
This argument has to be simply mentioned to be rejected because the proviso has been intro duced by the Central Executive Authority under the powers flowing from Article 73 1 a of the Constitution accord ing to which the executive power of the Union subject to the provisions of the Constitution shall extend to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws but of course subject to the proviso made thereunder and further this submission casually made was neither amplified nor pursued
Needless to point out that whilst by virtue of clause 1 a of Article 73 the Union executive whose power which is co extensive with the legislative power of Parlia ment can make laws on matters enumerated in List I Union List and List II Concurrent List to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution under Article 162 of the Constitution the executive power of the State executive which is co extensive with that of the State legislature can make laws in respect of matters enumerated in List III State List and also in respect of matters enumerated in List II Con current List subject to the provisions of the Constitu tion
In the present case the central executive authority has not either expressly or impliedly changed the policy of the Government by exercising unreasonable and arbitrary discretion and the present Rule 4 78 with its newly added second proviso does not repeal the essential features of the pre existing Rule 4 but only limits the ambit of the operation of Rule 4 under a given situation
Hence there is no substance in contending that the second proviso is bad and that the central executive authority has transgressed the constitutional limits
However the validity of second proviso the Rule 4 is challenged on Constitution about is violative of Article 14 ground that which we will deal at the later part of the judgment
We feel that it would be appropriate in this context to recall the observations of this Court in LIC of India vs Escorts Ltd  at page 1403   The observation reads thus When construing statutes enacted in the national interest we have necessarily to take the broad factual situations contemplated by the Act and interpret its provisions so as to advance and not to thwart the particular national interest whose advancement is pro posed by the legislation
 In the above background we shall now advert to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
Mr PP Rao senior counsel appearing for the appel lants forcibly and fervently contended that the second proviso to rule 4 of the impugned notification is ultra vires clause iii a of Regulation 4 of the Regulations 1955 inasmuch as the power to notify exceptions does not include the power to make ineligible the candidates who are otherwise eligible in terms of Clauses i ii and iii of Regulation 4
In other words all candidates who satis fy the requirements of nationality age and educational qualifications prescribed in clauses i to iii of Regula tion 4 are entitled to the maximum number of attempts prescribed in clause iii a which initially was three attempts since raised to four attempts wef 1290
He further submits that the expression in this behalf  appear ing in the said clause iii a refers only to the number of attempts of candidates otherwise eligible in terms of clauses i to iii of Regulation 4 and that the obvious intention in conferring the power on the Central Government to notify exceptions in his behalf of candidates other wise eligible  was to enable the Government to increase the number of attempts in deserving cases such as candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections including physically handicapped category and that consequently the Central Government has no power to add more conditions of eligibility to those stipulated in Regulation 4 itself
79 According to him the second part of the impugned proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules which insists that a candidate who was permitted to abstain from probationary training in order to appear at the next Civil Services Main Examination and who accepted the allocation to a service subsequently and is appointed to the service shall not be eligible to appear again in the CSE Main unless he first resigns from the Service and in other words it declares a candidate who is otherwise eligible in terms of Regulation 4 as ineligible unless he first resigns from the service
This additional condition of eligibility according to him is clearly beyond the scope of the limited power to notify exceptions to the number of attempts prescribed and therefore ultra vires Regulation 4 iii a
Mr Kapil Sibal the Learned Additional Solicitor Gener al presented a plausible argument countering the pleadings of Mr PP Rao and drew our attention to Rule 7 of IAS Recruitment Rules of 1954 which deals with the recruitment by competitive examination and sub rule 2 which states that an examination namely the competitive examination for recruitment to the service shall be conducted by the Commis sion in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may from time to time make in consultation with the Commission and State Governments
According to him the permissible number of attempts that a candidate can avail is also a condition of eligibility because the object is for a dual purpose namely to get the best and to retain the best  and that Regulation 4 iii a should be read with Rule 4 of CSE as its part
He continues to state that under Article 73 of the Constitution subject to the provisions of the Constitution the Central Government in exercise of its executive power can regulate the manner in which the right of a candidate in appearing for the competitive examination is to be exercised and therefore the restriction imposed in the second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules is in no way ultra vires clause iii a of Regulation 4 of Regulations 1955
The source of power for the Central Government for making rules and regulations for Recruitment and the Condi tions of Services of Persons appointed to All India Serv ices  in consultations with the Government of States con cerned as well making regulation under or in pursuance of any such right is derived from Section 3 of the All India Services Act 1951
The Regulations 1955 were made by Central Government in pursuance of rule 7 of IAS Recruitment Rules of 1954 in consultation with the State Governments and the Union Public Service Commission
Clause iii a of Regulation 4 was substituted vide Department of Personnel A  R Notification No 11028178AIS dated 13121978 and the latter part of which by another notification dated 23111988
We are concerned only 80 with the earlier part of the said clause as per which unless covered by any of the exceptions that may from time to time be notified by the Central Government in this behalf every candidate appearing for the examination after 1st January 1979 who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted three attempts at the examination
If Rule 4 of CSE Rules is examined in juxtaposition of clause iii a of Regulation 4 it is clear that both rule 4 of CSE Rules and Clause iii a of the Regulation 4 show that every eligible candidate appearing at the CSE should be permitted three attempts at the examination
As we have pointed out in the earlier part of this judgment the attempts are now increased to 4 under Rule 4 of the CSE Rules
This increase of attempts by the Government is by virtue of its power which flows under Article 73 of the Constitution of India
The eligibility of a candidate to appear in the CSE with regard to nationality age and educational qualifications is given under clauses i to iii of Regulation 4 but the Government by exercise of its executive power has imposed certain restrictions under some specified circumstances
Even today in the normal course every eligible candidate can appear in the examination for all the permissible attempts and the re striction of attempts is not applicable in the case of SCST who are otherwise eligible but subject to their upper age limit
A plain and grammatical reading of clause iii a of Regulation shows that if the number of attempts are covered by any of the exception that may from time to time be notified by the Central Government in the behalf then the notification will become enforceable and only in the ab sence of such notification every candidate normally can appear for all the permitted attempts at the examination whether three or four
The impugned second proviso does not restrict or put an embargo on the number of attempts in the normal course
But the restriction is only when the conditions enumerated in the impugned proviso are satisfied
In order to appreciate and understand the restriction imposed in its proper perspective we shall refer to cer tain decisions of this Court cited by both the parties firstly with reference to the interpretation of statutes and second with regard to the construction of a proviso in relation to the subject matter covered by the sectionrule to which the proviso is appended
Before we cogitate and analyse this bone of contention in some detail it will be convenient at this stage to pore over some of the well established rules of construction which would assist us to steer clear of the impasse entertained by the learned counsel according to whom some complications are created by the impugned notification being ultra vires clause iii a of Regulation 4 of Regulations 1955
Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes 10th Edition page 7 states thus     if the choice is between two interpretations the nar 81 rower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result
 In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice GP Singh 4th Edition 1988 at page 18 it is stated thus it is a rule now firmly established that the intention of the legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole
It is said in Craies on Statute Law 5th Edition as follows Manifest absurdity or futility palpable injustice or absurd inconvenience or anomaly to be avoided In the same text book 6th Edition at page 89 the following passage is found The argument from inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of constructions
 Viscount Simon in King Emperor vs Benoari Lal Sharma has said thus In construing enacted words the Court is not concerned with the policy involved or with the results injurious or otherwise which may follow from giving effect to the language used
 In Wardurton vs Loveland 1832 2 D  CH
HL480 at 489 it is observed that Where the Language of an Act is Clear and explicit we must give effect to it whatever may be the consequences for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature
82 See also Suffers vs Briggs 1982 I AC1 8
This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs
section Teja Singh  has expressed that a con struction which would defeat the object of legislature must if that is possible be avoided
See also M Pentiah and others vs Muddala Veeramallappa and Others  Desai J speaking for the bench in Lt Col Prithi Pal Singh Bedi etc
vs Union of India  Ors at 404 has pointed out as follows The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Parlia ment
One of the well recognised canons of construction is that the legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expression and unless there is any ambiguity in the language of the provision the Court should adopt liter al construction if it does not lead to an absurdity
 The Constitution Bench of this court in AR Antulay vs
RS Nayak  at 936 has observed thus It is a well established canon of construc tion that the Court should read the section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its con venience nor does any canon of construction permit the court to read the section in such manner as to render it to some extent otiose The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Second ary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheti etc
  ruled that the well established doctrine of interpretation is That the provisions contained in a statutory enactment or in rulesregulations framed thereunder have to be so construed as to be in harmony with each other and that where under a specific section or rule a particular subject has received special treatment such special provision will exclude the applicability of any general provision which might otherwise cover the said topic
 In Philips India Ltd vs Labour Court Madras and Ors  it is observed No canon of statutory construction is more firmly established than that the statute must be read as a whole
This is a general rule of construction applicable to all statutes alike which 83 spoken of as construction ex visceribus actus
 It has been held by this Court in Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and others
1987 1 SCC at 608 as follows It is an elementary rule that construction of a section is to be made of all parts together
It is not permissible to omit any part of it
For the principle that the statute must be read as a whole is equally applicable to different parts of the same section
In Dr Ajay Pradhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others  at 518 the Court has registered its view in the matter of construing a statute thus If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full ef fect
The argument of inconvenience and hard ship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there arc alternative methods of construction
Where the language is explicit its consequences are for Parlia ment and not for the courts to consider
 We think it is not necessary to proliferate this judg ment by citing all the judgments and extracting the textual passages from the various Text Books on the principles of Interpretation of statutes
However it will suffice to say that while interpreting a statute the consideration of inconvenience and hardships should be avoided and that when the language is clear and explicit and the words used are plain and unambiguous we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense with reference to other clauses of the Act or Rules as the case may be so far as possible to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutesRules Regulations relating to the subject matter
Added to this in construing a statute the Court has to ascertain the intention of the law making authority in the backdrop of the dominant purpose and the underlying intend ment of the said statute and that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language and applied as far as its explicit language admits consistent with the established rule of interpretation
A proviso to a SectionRule is expected to except or qualify something in the enacting part and presumed to be necessary
Coming to the 84 broad general rule of construction of the proviso Maxwell on The Interpretation of statute in the 11th edition at page 155 has quoted a passage from Kent s Commentary 0n American Law 12th Edn
Vol 1 463n reading thus The true principle undoubtedly is that the sound interpretation and meaning of the stat ute on a view of the enacting clause saving clause and proviso taken and construed to gether is to prevail
 Maxwell in his 12th Edition has quoted a passage from Att
Gen vs Chelsea Waterworks Co 1731 Fitzg
195 which reads that if a proviso cannot reasonably be construed otherwise than as contradicting the main enactment then the proviso will prevail on the principle that it speaks that last intention of the makers
It is pointed out in Piper vs Harvey 1958 10B439 that if however the language of the proviso makes it plain that it was intended to have an operation more extensive than that of the provision which it immediately follows it must be given such wider effect
In R vs Leeds Prison Governor Ex p Stafford it is pointed out thus The main part of a section must not be con strued in such a way as to render a proviso to the section redundant
 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ram Narain Sons Ltd and Ors
vs Asstt
Commissioner of Sales tax and Ors
  has made the following observations It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision
It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as proviso and to no other Another Constitution Bench in Abdul Jabar Butt  Another vs State of Jammu and Kashmir  held that it is a fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered with relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso
See also Commissioner of Income Tax vs
section Teja Singh  85 Kapur J speaking for the bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax Mysore Travancore Cochin and Coorg Bangalore vs The Indo Mercantile Bank Limited  reiterated the view expressed by Bhagwati J as he then was in Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Assistant Com missioner of Sales Tax  at 493 and the observations by Lord Macmillan in Madras  Southern Mahratta Railway Co vs Bezwada Municipality 1944 LR71 IA 113 122 and laid down the sphere of a proviso thus The territory of a proviso therefore is to carve out an exception to the main enactment and exclude something which otherwise would have been within the section
It has to operate in the same field and if the language of the main enactment is clear it cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting the main enactment or to exclude by implication what the enactment clearly says unless the words of the proviso are such that that is its neces sary effect
Vide also Corporation of the CitV of Toronto vs Attorney General for Canada 37 
 Ms Mackinnon Mackenzie  Co Ltd vs Audrey D Cost and Another 1987 2 SCC 469 may also be referred to
When the impugned second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules is interpreted in its grammatical meaning and cognate expressions and construed harmoniously with the substantive rule in the light of the above decisions of this Court as well as the views expressed by various authors in their Text Books on this subject it is pellucid that the said proviso only carves out an exception to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules in given circumstances and under specified conditions and therefore the second proviso cannot be read in isolation and interpreted literally
On the other hand the substantive Rule 4 is to be read in conjunction with the two provisos appended thereto so as to have a correct interpretation
In the proviso in dispute there are no positive words or indications which would completely exclude the operation of the substantive rule the spirit of which is reflected in Regulation 4 of the Regulations 1955
In fact Rule 4 as stood till 1986 in its normal course allowed a candidate to appear for three attempts since increased to 4 for 1990 and 1991 Examinations
But the restriction is imposed by the second proviso only under certain circumstances as repeated ly indicated above
Although the notification of 1986 introducing the impugned proviso no doubt has to be strictly construed the Court cannot overlook the very aim and object of the proviso thereby either defeating its purpose or rendering it redundant or 86 inane or making it otiose
Judged from any angle we are not impressed by the contention of Mr PP Rao that there is a violent breach of the provisions of the substantive Rule 4 of CSE Rules and Regulation 4 iii a and we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that the impugned second proviso either subverts or destroys the basic objectives of Rule 4 and that it is ultra vires
In this connection it may be noted that the restric tion or embargo as the one under consideration is not only placed on the candidates who on the basis of the result of the previous CSE had been allocated and appointed to IPS or Central Service Group A  but also on the candidates ap pointed in the higher echelon of Civil Service which we will presently deal with
There is a far more restrictive rule in existence namely Rule 8 of the CSE Rules according to which a candidate who is appointed to the Indian Adminis trative Service IAS or the Indian Foreign Service IFS on the result of an earlier examination before the commencement of the ensuing examination and continues to be a member of that service will not be eligible to compete at the subse quent examination
even if heshe is disillusioned and wants to switch over
In other words this rule precludes the candidates who have been appointed to the IAS or IFS from sitting in the ensuing examination while in service
Further this rule states that in case a candidate has been appointed to the IAS or IFS on the basis of the earlier examination and after the subsequent preliminary examina tion but before the Main examination that candidate if continues to be a member of that service shall not be eligible to appear in the ensuing main examination notwith standing that the said candidate has qualified himself in the preliminary examination
Similarly if a candidate is appointed to the IAS or IFS after the commencement of the Main Examination but before the announcement of the result and continues to be a member of that service the said candidate shall not be considered for appointments to any servicepost on the basis of the result of this examination
The purpose for incorporating this uncompromising and strin gent provision is that the candidates appointed to the IAS and IFS are required to man the key positions both in the Central and State Services wherein the appointees have to combine their intellectual capacity and the requisite traits of personality and also to exhibit higher intellectual proficiency and leadership
Thus Rule 8 keeps up and main tains the phenomenon of the upper civil service run under our constitution with all enduring features and facets of the said service on All India basis
But there is no bar for a candidate who is appointed to the lASFS resigning from that service and sitting in the examination for IPS or any Central Service Group A 
Under Rule 4 of CSE Rules not withstanding anything contained in Rule 8 a candidate who accepts allocation to a service and appointed to that 87 service shall not be eligible to appear again in the CSE unless he first resigns from that service
In other words a candidate who is allocated and appointed to a service can sit in the ensuing examination provided he first resigns from that service
This restriction in our view is a reasonable one in order to achieve the desired result in the background of the situation and circumstances about which we have elaborately discussed albeit
In conclusion we hold that the second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules does not travel beyond the intent of the main rule putting any unjustifiable embargo and that the proviso is not ultra vires Regulation 4 iii a of Regulations 1955 on the ground it makes the candidates ineligible who are otherwise eligible in terms of clauses i to iii of the said Regulation and that the proviso to Rule 17 is not invalid
An enactment is never to be held invalid unless it be beyond question plainly and palpably in excess of legisla tive power or it is ultra vires or inconsistent with the statutory or constitutional provisions or it does not con form to the statutory or constitutional requirements or is made arbitrarily with bad faith of oblique motives or op posed to public policy
In our considered opinion the second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules cannot be held to be invalid on any of the grounds mentioned above
The next question that has arisen for consideration is how far the principle of reasonable restriction can be applied in the formulation of the rules keeping the rele vance of the recruitment scheme to the civil service
Nei ther an omnibus answer or a simplistic solution would carry us far to face the public service reality in the modern state the governing consideration of which is the context of actual situation circumstances resources and the socie tal goals of the particular Statecountry
The further argument advanced in Civil Appeal Nos
5506 5525 of 1990 as appears from the written submission made by Mr CN Sreekumar is that on a correct interpreta tion of the impugned second proviso the last clause of which reads such candidate who accepts the service shall not be eligible to appear again in the Civil Services Exami nation unless he first resigns from the service refers to only candidates who on the basis of the result of the previous CSE had been allocated to the Central Services Group A  but who expressed their intention to appear in the next CSE Main for competing for IAS IFS IPS or Central Services Group A  and who are permitted to abstain from the probationary training in order to so appear and who joined Group A  service subsequently on allocation either on the basis of the previous examination or the subsequent examina tion
According to him in other words the candidates who did not avail the benefit of abstaining from the probation ary training 88 with the permission of the Government in order to appear at the next Civil Services Main Examination do not fail within the scope of the impugned restriction and they cannot be asked to resign as a condition precedent to their appear ing again in the CSE
This tenuous argument does not appeal to us
Firstly the expression such candidate is not used in the proviso on the other hand the words used are a candidate vide publication of Gazette of India dated 13 12 86
Secondly the last part of the proviso as it stands reads a candidate who accepts allocation to a service and is appointed to a service shall not be eligible to appear again in the Civil Services Examination unless he has first resigned from the service
 Thirdly a correct and proper reading of the last limb of the proviso clearly demonstrates that the expression a candidate refers only to the candidate mentioned in the earlier part of the proviso
Lastly if such an interpretation is to be given on the wrong reading of the proviso then the whole object of the proviso will be defeated
Question No 7 Mrs CM Chopra scathingly attacks the judgment of the Tribunal inter alia contending that the protection guaran teed to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution more particularly under Article 335 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive action by introducing the second proviso thereby reducing the number of permissi ble attempts for appearing in the CSE hitherto enjoyed by such candidates that the right statutorily and constitu tionally vested on the SCST candidates permitting them to make unlimited attempts of course subject to the upper age limit cannot be easily whittled down and that the second proviso is an independent proviso having no relation to the first proviso and apriori it cannot control and prevail upon the first proviso which declares that this restriction on the number of attempts will not apply in the case of Sched uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are otherwise eligible According to her the reservation policy guaran teed to the SCST candidates cannot be obliterated by an unreasonable and arbitrary executive action
No doubt it is true that while the substantive Rule 4 of the CSE Rules permits every candidate to appear for three attempts at the examination which is now increased to four the first proviso to this rule states that this restriction on the number of attempts at the examination is not applica ble in the case of SCST candidates who arc otherwise eligi ble
However even in the case of SCST candidates there is a specific restriction so far as the upper age limit is concerned as envisaged under Rule 6 b of the CSE Rules
Regulation 72 of Regulation 1955 states that the 89 candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes may to the extent of the number of vacan cies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be filled on the basis of the standard determined by the Commission under sub regulation 1 be recommended by the Commission by a relaxed standard to make up the defi ciency in the reserved quota subject to the fitness of these candidates for selection to the Service irrespective of their ranks in order to merit at the examination
Sub Regulation 1 of Regulation 7 reads that subject to the provision of Sub Regulation 2 the Commission UPSC shall forward to the Central Government a list arranged in order of merit of the candidates who have qualified by such standard as the Commission may determine
In the normal course a candidate belonging to SCST category can enjoy all the benefits under the rules and regulations
But the restriction imposed under the second proviso is only for a specified category of candidates by treating all such candidates at par and without making any exception to the candidates belonging to SCST
The submis sion made by Mrs Chopra that the second proviso is an independent one does not merit consideration because the second proviso to Rule 4 begins with the words provided timber  which expression would mean that a strict com pliance of the second proviso is an additional requirement to that of the substantive rule 4 and the first proviso
The expression provided further spells out that the first proviso cannot be read in isolation or independent of the second proviso but it must be read in conjunction with the second proviso
To put in other words once the candidates belonging to SC or ST get through one common examination and interview test and are allocated and appointed to a service based on their ranks and performance and brought under the one and the same stream of category then they too have to be treated among all other regularly and lawfully selected candidates and there cannot be any preferential treatment at that stage on the ground that they belong to SC or ST though they may be entitled for all other statutory benefits such as to the relaxation of age the reservation etc
The unrestricted number of attempts subject to the upper age limit is available to the SCST candidates in the normal course but that is subject to the second proviso because when once they are allocated and appointed along with other candidates to a categorypost they are treated alike
Ramaswami J speaking for the Constitution Bench in CA Rajendran vs Union of India  Ors  at page 733 while interpreting Article 164 of the Constitution of India observed thus 90 Our conclusion therefore is that article 164 does not confer any right on the petitioner and there is no constitutional duty imposed on the Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion
In other words Art164 is an enabling provision and confers a discre tionary power on the state to make a reserva tion of appointments in favour of backward class of citizens which in its opinion is not adequately represented in the Services of the State
We are accordingly of the opinion that the petitioner is unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the case
 A seven Judges Bench in State of Kerala vs
NM Thomas  before which some important questions arose with regard to the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution referred to and relied upon the observation in Rajendran s case holding that reservation is not a constitutional com pulsion but is a discretionary one
In that case Krishna lyer J agreeing with the majority view expressed his opin ion thus The State has been obligated to promote the economic interests of harijans and like back ward classes Articles 46 and 335 being a testament and Articles 14 to 16 being the tool kit if one may put it that way
To blink at this panchsheel is to be unjust to the Constitution
 Further the learned Judge held Indeed Article 335 is more specific and cannot be brushed aside or truncated in the operational ambit vis a vis Article 161 and 2 without hubristic aberration In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh Railway vs Union of India  Others 19811 SCC 246 Krishna lyer J observed that Article 164 is not a jarring note but auxil iary to fair fulfilment of Article 161 and further said Article 164 is not in the nature of an exception to Article 161
It is a facet of Article 161 which fosters and furthers the idea of equality of opportunity with spe cial reference to an underprivileged and deprived class of citizens to whom egalite de droit formal or legal equality is not egalite de fait practical or factual equality
See also MR Balaji vs State of Mysore 1963 Supp 1 SCR 439 Triloki Nath vs State of JK  and T Devadasan vs Union of India  and Comp troller and Auditor General of India vs 91 KS Jagannathan  at 684 para 6
The Constitution no doubt has laid a special responsi bility on the Government to protect the claims of SCST in the matter of public appointments under various Constitu tional provisions of which we shall presently refer to a few
Article 164 as manifested from the various decisions of this court referred to hereinbefore is an enabling provision conferring a discretionary power on the State for making any provision or reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the service under the State
The expression backward class  obviously takes within its fold people belonging to SC and ST vide Janki Prasad vs State of JK  Clause 4 of Article 16 has to be interpreted in the back ground of Article 335 as ruled by this Court in General Manager vs Rangachari  and in Rajendran s case referred to above
Article 335 enjoins that the claims of the members of the SC and ST shall be taken into consid eration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration in the making of appointments to services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State
Article 3204 makes it clear that the Public Service Commission is not required to be consulted as respects the manner in which any provision referred to in article 164 may be made or as respects the manner in which effect may be given to Article 335
The query before us is not in respect of the reservation of backward classes or in respect of the claims of SC and ST servicesposts but it is whether the candidates belonging to SC and ST are entitled to any exception from the opera tion of the proviso
The answer to the above query would be an negative as we have aforesaid
It may be true as fervently submitted by Mrs Chopra there may be some hard cases but the hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law
Therefore in the case on hand as long as the second proviso does not suffer from any vice it has to be construed uniformly giving effect to all those falling under one category in the absence of any specific provision exempting any particular class or classes of candidates from the operation of the impugned proviso and no one can steal march over others falling under the same category
Hence the right of candidates belonging to SC and ST competing further to improve their career opportunities is limited to the extent permissible under the second provi so to Rule 4 read with Rule 17 of the CSE Rules
For the aforementioned reasons we find no merits in the submission
92 of Mrs Chopra that the second proviso is not applicable to the candidates belonging to SC or ST
Mr Gopal Subramanian appearing on behalf of some of the appellants supplemented by the arguments of other counsel stating that the very structure of the recruitment policy is itself disturbed to the great disadvantage of the candidates who since then have been enjoying the right to appear for 3 attempts as conferred by the substantive Rule 4 and that one of the present restrictions that the candidates should severe from the service if intends to appear for the third time after he has been allocated and appointed to a service is unjust unreasonable and it seriously transgresses on the main provision and virtually interdicts the candidates from availing their statutorily conferred and protected right
Therefore such a serverance of status from the service is ex facie wrong even if one can understand losing of senior ity
We have already discussed this interpellation in exten so while dealing with similar contentions and our considered view expressed albeit will clearly answer this contention
Hence we hold that there is no question of severance of status as we have come to the conclusion that the restric tion imposed by the impugned proviso cannot be said to be unjust unreasonable or arbitrary or change of any policy and moreover the spirit of the main rule is not in any way disturbed
In the result we conclude that there is neither any tenable reason nor any logic in the above submission
Question No 8 Then a mordacious criticism was unleashed by all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants inter alia contending that the second proviso which is an administrative instruction is highly arbitrary and irration al having no nexus to the object of the scheme of recruit ment to the post of civil services and that there was inade quate attention paid to the nexus between the intent of the proviso and the object to be achieved
The learned Additional Solicitor General controverted the above argument stating that the working system of the civil service in relation to its logical relationship of recruitment rules on different aspects has been exclusively investigated bearing in mind the process of rapid economic development with a democratic framework of Government on Indian scenario and the present proviso is having a dynamic reasonable and relative nexus with the object to be achieved in the present system of the civil services within its administrative framework
No denying the fact that the civil service being the top most service in 93 the country has got to be kept at height distinct from other services since these top echelons have to govern a wide variety of departments
Therefore the persons joining this higher service should have breadth of interest and ability to acquire new knowledge and skill since those joining the service have to be engaged in multiple and multifarious activities as pointed out supra
In order to achieve this object the selectees of this higher civil services have to undergo training in the National Academy Training institutes wherein they have to undergo careful programme of specialized training as probationers
The various schemes of training are based on the conviction that splendid active experience is the real training and the selectees are to be trained in the academies in all kinds of work they have to handle afterwards with a band of senior chosen officers
Training at the academy comprises a founda tion course followed by another course of practical train ing
The rationale underlying the course at the training centres is that the officers of civil services must acquire an understanding of the constitutional social economic and administrative framework within which they have to function and also must have a complete sense of involvement in the training and thereafter in the service to whichshe is appointed
It is apparent that initial training is in the nature of providing young probationers an opportunity to counter act their weak points and at the same time develop their social abilities and as such the aspect of training is the most important of all
It was brought to the notice of the Government that the probationers who have been allocated to the IPS and Group A  service were more often than not completely neglecting their training in the academiesTraining Institutes and also have gone on enmass leave thereby creating a complete vacuum in the academy and the Training Institutes for the purpose of preparing for the next CSE Main in the hope of getting a better position and a more preferred service like IAS IFS etc
without having a sense of involvement with the service to which they have been allocated and appointed on the basis of the earlier examination
It seems that the Government had been facing this disturbed problem of indiscipline and inattentiveness among the probationers undergoing training who were busy themselves with the preparation for the ensu ing CSE
As a result of this bent on preparation for the CSE the training imparted was not seriously taken and the concentration of the probationers was only in the prepara tion of the next CSE
Consequently the standard of officers turned out of the academy on completion of their training declined very much
Therefore in order to overcome this problem it was suggested and considered that the probation ers selected and allocated to a service and sent for train ing should be debarred from appearing in the ensuing CSE so that they can 94 fully devote themselves to the training and take it more seriously
Resultantly the matter was considered in consul tation with the Department of Personnel and Training and it was agreed that the relevant rules should be amended so as to prevent the IPS and Group A  probationers from joining training at the academy in case they intend to take another CSE
These measures are taken for making probationers train ing more effective and meaningful
Hence for the aforementioned reasons we hold that there is a dynamic nexus between the impugned second proviso and the object to be achieved
Question No 9 We shall now pass on to the real and pivotal point in issue which has been hotly debated and eloquently articulat ed by all the learned counsel contending that the impugned proviso is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution resulting in a disastrous effect
All the learned counsel appearing in all the batches of the appeals amplified the above contention stating thus In all there are 46 Group A  Central Services listed in the CCS Rules of which only for 16 Group A  Services recruitment is made through the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC annually and it is only in respect of the candidates already allocated and appointed to the IPS or to one or other of these 16 Group A  services the impugned proviso imposes an onerous restriction that they should first resign in order to appear at the next Civil Service Examination whereas there is no such restriction so far as candidates recruited through the same open competition to the remaining Group B  services are concerned despite the fact that the level of responsibility is the same and the qualifications prescribed are comparable
This kind of classification between these two groups has no rational nexus with the object of selection
The reasons attributed for such a classification on the ground of neglect of train ing financial loss unemployment situation loss to service are all common to all the Central Service Group A  listed in the CCS Rules and therefore the impugned second proviso is held to be discriminatory against the candidates appoint ed to the IPS and 16 Group A  services and as such it is violative of Article 14
The impugned proviso makes a further discrimination vis a vis candidates appointed to Group B  services in that the said proviso by placing the onerous condition of resignation from service of candidates appointed to the IPS and Group A  service in substance and effect and it 95 precludes them from competing for higher civil service with the candidates appointed to Group B  service and thereby facilitates the selection of candidates with relatively inferior merit to posts of superior Group A  services
In other words the impugned proviso excludes the candidates appointed to group A  services from competition on the one hand and on the other facilitates selection from amongst less meritorious candidates appointed to Group B  services to the highest and prestigious All India Services
This defeats the very object of securing the services of most meritorious candidates to the most important All India Services and it is arbitrary for want of rational nexus between the classification of candidates with the proven superior merit and those of inferior merit and consequently the object of recruiting the most meritorious candidates to the top most All India Services is frustrated
In addition to the above submission reliance was placed on the dictum laid down in RK Dalmia vs Justice Tendolkar  at pages 296 297 holding In order to pass the test of permissible classifications two conditions must be fulfilled namely i that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia with distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and ii that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question
 According to Mr PP Rao the recommendations of the Kothari Committee and the Estimates Committee are not en forceable proprio vigore and the executive authorities who are expected to act justly and reasonably cannot usurp the functions of the Parliament and arbitrarily put a restric tion through the impugned proviso which restriction is highly tainted with hostility and discrimination subjecting the candidates allocated and appointed to the IPS and Group A  services to a harassing and oppressive treatment
Mr Gopal Singh appearing for some of the appellants besides stating that he is adopting the submissions made by other learned counsel cited some decisions in support of his arguments that the discrimination now existing consequent upon the introduction of the second proviso offends Article 14 of the Constitution
At the risk of repetition it may be stated that under the present system of civil services all candidates are selected through one common examination preliminary and main and interview test
A list of selected candidates in the order of merit is published and thereafter the success ful candidates are allocated to different services namely IAS IFS IPS Group 96 A  and Group B  services based on their ranks and prefer ences
Of the candidates IAS and IFS are top rankers in the merit list
In the notification dated 13121986 issued by the Ministry of Personnel there were only 28 servicesposts of which the first three were IAS IFS and IPS and of the remaining iv to xviii were Group A  services and xix to xxviii were Group B  services
In the list of Group A  services items xvii and xviii were Grade II and III respectively
In notification dated 19121987 there were in total 27 servicesposts of which the first three were the same and the services under iv to xix were Group A  services and xx to xxvii were Group B  services
In the nomenclature of Group A  and Group B  services there was slight variation
In the subsequent notification issued on 17121988 besides the first three services being the same the total number of services in group A  was 16 and in Group B  the number of services was reduced to 7
In 1989 the first three services remaining the same there were 16 services under items iv to xix in Group A  services and 8 servicesposts in Group B  Services under item xx to xxvii
In the notification issued on 5th January 1991 the total services were reduced from 27 to 26 and items i to iii remaining the same there were 16 Group A  services iv to xix and 7 services in Group B  xx to xxvi
Thus it is seen that there was inclusion or exclusion of one service or other besides the change of nomenclature in one or two services in the notifications for the CSE every year
As envisaged in Rule 17 due consideration is given at the time of making appointments and on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for various services at the time of his application and the said appointments will be governed by the rulesregulations in force as applicable to the respective Services at the time of appointment
As pointed out in detail in the preceding part of this judgment under the first proviso to Rule 17 a candidate who has been approved and appointed to IPS or Central Services Group A  will be eligible to compete for appointment in services mentioned against that service in column No 3 of the table given in the said rule
As per the second proviso appended to the said rule a candidate who is appointed to a Central Service Group B  on the results of an earlier examination will be eligible to compete for IAS IFS IPS and Central Services Group A  and considered only for those appointments
The intent of the above proviso proceeds on the footing that all Central Services of Group A  stand on equal footing and likewise all Group B  serv ices also stand on equal footing within their respective group of servicesposts and that there is no point in com peting for any one of the services by a candidate within the same Group A  or Group B  services as the 97 case may be when he has already been allocated and appointed to one of those services in either of the groups to which he has been selected on his merit
It cannot be disputed that the candidates allocated to Group A  services are more meritorious compared to candi dates allocated to Group B  services
Consequently those allocated to Group B  services get lower position compared to those allocated to Group A  services
The pay scales in Group B  services are comparatively less than those meant for IAS IFS and IFS and Central Services Group A 
There is a clear cut separation on the basis of ranking and merit and therefore it cannot be said by any stretch of imagina tion that both Group A  and Group B  services fall under one and the same category but on the other these services are two distinct and separate categories failing under two different classifications
The Additional Solicitor General refuting the arguments of Mr PP Rao that there is a discrimination between Group A  and Group B  services in that whilst an Under Secre tary selected in Group A  services is not allowed to sit for examination by availing his third chance a Section Officer coming under Group B  services is permitted to sit for examination availing his chance without resigning from service emphatically stated that this argument has no merit since in Group A  services there is a vertical movement
The learned ASG further clarified that Group A  and Group B  services are two separate services having different status prospects conditions of services and pay scales and both the services under the two groups are not similarly situated besides the candidates in Group A  services standing in higher rank and merit
The Tribunal after deeply considering the similar con tention raised before it has concluded as follows  
We do not see any reasonable basis to urge that Group A  and Group B  Services should be treated at par
Even their pay scales and conditions of service not the same as in the Group A  Services
It is there fore not a question of comparing these two Services and placing them at par
In our opinion there is no discrimination
It will be noticed that the alleged discrimination is not on the basis of religion race caste sex descent place of birth residence or any of them
The discrimination if any has a reasonable nexus with the objective for which it has been made
The objective is to create five categories of Services consisting of IAS IFS IFS Central Services Group A  and Central Services Group B 
We are fur 98 ther of the opinion that the Government having come across certain difficulties and problems in the matter of probationary training and the filling up of the vacancies in various Serv ices made these rules
We do not find the argument of discrimination between Group A  and Group B  Services to be valid
We there fore reject these arguments
One other argument advanced on behalf of the appellants was that he candidates who have been allocated in Group A  services and whose raining is postponed at their request have to loose their seniority whereas he candidates who have been appointed to Group B  services do not suffer such kind of disability and that they can even after their train ing retain their original seniority which they had at the time of initial selection
This serious setback suffered by a candidate selected in Group A  services according to the counsel for the appellants indicates that there is an apparent discrimination between the two sets of candidates
This contention of the appellants according to ASG cannot be countenanced because the services under Group A  and Group B  are different services and therefore the condi tions of service of a particular service cannot be compared with other service especially when the services are not at par and more so when the other service namely Group B  service is less in rank and merit to that of Group A  Service
In passing all the learned counsel in assailing the validity of the impugned second proviso drew our attention to various Service Rules such as Central Secretariat Serv ice Rules Indian Revenue Service Rules 1988 Indian Cus toms and Central Excise Service Group A  Rules 1987 Department of Revenue Customs Appraiser Recruitment Rules 1988 Indian Railway Personnel Service Recruitment Rules 1975 and Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules 1971 all made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and attempted to show that various provisions of those rules relating to the recruitment and service condi tions go in support of their submissions that there is a hostile discrimination between the candidates of Group A  services and Group B  services
In our considered opinion
this abortive attempt made by the learned counsel does not loom large and assume any significance in examining the broad aspect of the main issues involved and in testing the constitutionality of the said proviso
Now it necessarily follows whether the classification of these two services one falling under Group A  and another failing under Group B  are based on intelligible differentia
99 The Constitution Bench of this Court in RK Dalmia s case supra after reiterating the legal principle enunciat ed by a Constitution Bench of Seven Judges of this Court in Budhart Choudhry vs State of Bihar   has ruled thus It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation
 Having regard to the objective in that case it has been held In determining whether there is any intelli gible differentia on the basis of which the petitioners and their companies have been grouped together it is permissible to look not only at the facts appearing in the notifica tion but also the facts brought to the notice of the Court upon affidavits
The facts in the present case afford sufficient support to the presumption of constitutionality of the noti fication and the petitions have failed to discharge the onus which was on them to prove that other people or companies similarly situated have been left out and that the petitioners and their companies have been singled out for discriminatory and hostile treatment
 In Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another vs Union of India and Others   the facts were thus The appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the authority of the Central Government to select candidates for certain reserved seats on the ground that they having secured 625 per cent marks would have got admission but for the reservation of seats which were filled by nominations by the Central Government
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as well as the Review Petition
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellants appealed to this Court
Grover J speaking for the Constitu tion Bench approved the dictum in RK Dalmia s case cited above laying down the fulfilment of the two conditions as the test of permissible classification and held that the classification in that case was based on intelligible dif ferentia observing thus It is the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical col lege
It is for h to lay down the criteria for eligibility
From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country
The Gov ernment cannot be denied the right to 100 decide from what sources the admission will be made
That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter alia on an overall assess ment and survey of the requirements of resi dents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is necessary to provide facilities for medical education
If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial geographical or other reasona ble basis it is not for the Courts to inter fere with the manner and method of making the classification
 In the above case the Court has distinguished the decision in Rajendran s case referred to above
YV Chandrachud J as he then was speaking for the Constitution Bench in State of Jammu  Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa  Ors  in which it was contend ed on behalf of the State that is always open to the Govern ment to classify its employees so long as the classification is reasonable and has nexus with the object thereto stated as follows Thus it is no part of the appellants  burden to justify the classification or to establish its constitutionality
Formal education may not always produce excellence but a classifi cation founded on variant educational qualifi cations is for purposes of promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer to say the least not unjust on the fact of it and the onus therefore cannot shift from where it originally lay      
Classification is primarily for the legisla ture or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and condi tions of service and if looked at from the standpoint of the authority making it the classification is found to rest on a reasona ble basis it has to be up held  
Discrimination is the essence of classifica tion and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only it rests on an unreasonable basis
Equality is for equals 
That is to say that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment 
Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the considera tion whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis whether it bears nexus with the object in view
It cannot extend to em 101 barking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the rule making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object
 PN Bhagwati J and Krishna lyer J have concurred with the view expressed by chandrachud J though they have added some more concurring observations of their own
It will be apposite to recall an observation of this Court in AS Sangwan vs Union of India 1980 Supp
SCC 559 at 561 reading as follows A policy once formulated is not good for ever it is perfectly within the competence of the Union of India to change it rechange it adjust it and readjust it according to the compulsions of circumstances and the impera tives of national considerations
We cannot as Court give directives as to how the De fence Ministry should function except to State that the obligation not to act arbitrarily and to treat employees equally is binding on the Union of India because if functions under the Constitution and not over it   
It is entirely within the reasonable discre tion of the Union of India
It may stick to the earlier policy or give it up
But one imperative of the Constitution implicit in Article 14 is that if it does change its policy it must do so fairly and should not give the impression that it is acting by any ulterior criteria or arbitrarily   See also Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh Rail wav s case already referred to
In Deepak Sibal vs Punjab University  MM Dutt J speaking for the Court has held thus In order to consider the question as to the reasonableness of the classification it is necessary to take into account the objective for such classification
If the objective be illogical unfair and unjust necessarily the classification will have to be held as unrea sonable
Surrounding circumstances may be taken into consideration in support of the constitutionality of a law which is otherwise hostile or discriminatory in nature
But the circumstances must be such as to justify the discriminatory treatment or the classification subserving the object sought to be achieved
A classification by the identification of a source must 102 not be arbitrary but should be on a reasona ble basis having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the rules for such admission
A classification need not be made with mathematical precision but if there be little or no difference between the person or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group the classifica tion cannot be said to be a reasonable one      
It is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group in that case the classification can not be said to be a rea sonable one     
It is submitted that in making the classification the surrounding circumstances may be taken into account      follows from the observation that surrounding circumstances may be taken into consideration in support of the constitutionality of a law which is otherwise hostile or discriminatory in nature
But the circumstances must be such as to justify the discriminatory treatment or the classification subserving the object sought to be achieved
In the instant case the circumstances which have been relied on by the respondents namely the possibility of production by them of bogus certificates and insecurity of their services are not in our opinion such circumstances as will justify the exclusion of the employees of private establishments from the evening classes
 What falls instantly for determination is whether the differentia on which the classification is sought to be made has a rational relation with the object to be achieved
We have already discussed this question in detail when we have separately examined the question as to whether the second proviso is related to the purposes stated therein
Whereas Mr Kapil Sibal has urged that it is always open to the Government to classify its employees as long as the classification is reasonable and has nexus to the object thereto the rival contention is that there is no nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved thereby that in fact the classification defeated that object that if chances of sitting for examination are denied to a few with equals there is inherent vice attached to such classification and that in such circumstances the unreasonableness of the classification becomes patent
It is further urged 103 on behalf of the appellants that this classification foments frustration amongst the selectees of group A  services and produces inefficiency by placing men of lower efficiency in a very advantageous position
Mr PP Rao would urge that if there is a vertical movement in group A  services as stated by Mr Kapil Sibal how can candidates in group B  services be permitted to sit for examination of IAS IFS and IPS by passing the meritorious candidates under group A  and therefore the classification is per se irrational unjust and discriminatory and as such ultra vires Article 14
We shall now bestow out judicious thought over this matter and carefully examine the rival contentions of the rival parties in the light of the guiding principles lucid ly laid down by this Court in a series of decisions a few of which we have already referred to hereinbefore
The selections for IAS
IFS and IPS group A  services and group B  service are made by a combined competitive examination and viva voce test
There cannot be any dispute that each service is a distinct and separate cadre having its sepa rate field of operation with different status prospects pay scales the nature of duties the responsibilities to the post and conditions of service etc
Therefore once a candidate is selected and appointed to a particular cadre he cannot be allowed to say that he is at par with the others on the ground that all of them appeared and were selected by a combined competitive examination and viva voce test and that the qualifications prescribed are comparable
In our considered view the classification of the present case is not based on artificial inequalities but is hedged within the salient features and truly founded on substantial differences
Judged from this point of view it seems to us impossible to accept the submission that the classification rests on an unreal and unreasonable basis and that it is arbitrary or absurd
In this connection it may be noted that in fact the civil services in foreign countries too such as United States of America Great Britain France and Canada grew up by degrees from time to time in tune with the concept of new ideas under the pressure of some necessity or influence of particular theories linked with the changing political ideology and social conditions and with a view to trimming the civil service scheme and this process of development is by way of evolution rather than revolution
We may again hark pack to the case of the appellants and examine whether this classification offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Article 14 declares that the State shall not deny to any person 104 equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India
The cherished principle underlying the above Article is that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is the same
Vide Chiranjit Lal vs Union of India  or in other words its action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some valid principle which in itself must not be irrational or discriminatory Vide Kasturi vs State of J  K albeit
As ruled by this Court in Ameeroonissa vs Mah boob and Gopi Chand vs Delhi Administration  that differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14 and it denies equal protection only when there is no rational or reasonable basis for the differentiation
Thus Article 14 condemns discrimination and forbids class legislation but permits classification founded on intelligible differentia having a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved by the ActRuleRegulation in question
The Government is legitimately empowered to frame rules of classification for securing the requisite standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not scientifically be perfect or logically complete
As observed by this Court more than once every classification is likely in some degree 10 produce some inequality
The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases but we feel that in the present case it is not neces sary to go in for any lengthy discussion as 10 the origin meaning and the gradual development of the concept of prin ciples and enlargement of the scope and effect of this Article
Suffice to mention a few decisions of this court relating to the issue under consideration namely Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury vs The Union of India Budhart Choudhry and Others vs The State of Bihar RK Dalmia vs Justice Tendol kar all cited above EP Royappe vs State of Tamil Nadu   Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 1 SCC 248 Ramana vs International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1928 Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel   Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union of India   and Central Inland Water Transport Corpo ration vs Brojo Nath AIR 1986 SC 1971
In Devadasan vs Union of India  wherein Subba Rao J as he then was has dissented from the majority and pointed out that the expression equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws  means equality among equals and that Article 14 does not provide for an absolute equality of treatment to all persons in utter disregard in every conceivable circumstance of the differences
105 In Birendra Kumar Nigam and Others vs Union of IndiaWrit Petition Nos 220 222 of 1963 decided on 1331964 three writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a common question regarding the constitutional validity of certain rules framed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and certain directions issued by it relative to the appearance of Assistants employed in the Central Secretariat Service in the competitive examination held by the Union Public Service Commission for recruitment to certain All India Services
In each of the above three petitions grounds of challenge was same viz that the impugned rules and directions were violative of Articles 14 and 16 1 of the Constitution
The facts in relation to the three petitions were slightly different
Therefore by way of illustration we will tersely state the facts in Writ Petition No 220 of 1963
The petitioner in that case was appointed to the post of an Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service from 1956 and he joined the same on 29856
But in March of that year he had already submitted his application to be includ ed as a candidate for competing in the combined examination for the several All India Services IAS IFS IPS and the several categories of the All India Central Services the Examination for which was held in September 1956 but before that date he received an information from the Home Ministry that he could not appear for that examination because he was still on probation
prior to the date on which he completed his probation and was confirmed as an Assistant the Minis try of Home Affairs issued the impugned notification on 1431957 pointing out that there was an acute shortage of Grade IV Assistants in the Secretariat Service and that the Assistants would not be permitted to compete at the examina tion to be held in 1957 and that those who were desirous of competing their candidature would be restricted to an ap pointment to Grade III of the Central Secretariat alone
We are not giving the facts of other two writ petitions since the common question decided was the same
Rajagopala Ayyangar J while speaking for the Constitu tion Bench in that case has held If as must must be it is conceded that the existencies convenience or necessity or a particular department might justify the impo sition of a total ban on the employees in that department from seeking employment in other departments a partial ban which permits them to seek only certain posts in the 106 same department cannot be characterised as illegal as being discriminatory
The mere fact therefore that under the rules officers in certain other departments are permitted to compete for a Class I post is no ground by itself for considering such a variation as an unreasonable discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 1 of the Constitution as not based on a classification having a ration al and reasonable relation to the object to be attained
Of course no rule imposes a  ban on these employees resigning their posts and competing for posts in the open competition along with open market candidates As we have repeatedly held that each of the civil services namely IAS IFS IPS Group A  Services and Group B  Services is a separate and determinate service forming a distinct cadre and that each of the services is founded on intelligible differentia which on rational grounds distinguishes persons grouped together from those left out and that the differences are real and substantial having a rational and reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved and that there is no question of unfairness or arbitrariness in the executive action in adding the second proviso to the substantive rule 4 of CSE Rules
When the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is carefully exam ined in the backdrop of the legal principles and the factual position we are in full agreement with conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the impugned second proviso to Rule 4 is not violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India
In Summation The impugned second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules introduced by Notification llll No 13016486 AIS1 dated 13121986 is legally and constitutionally valid and sus tainable in law and the said proviso neither travels beyond the intent of the main rule namely Rule 4 of the CSE Rules nor it is ultra vires Regulation 4 iii a of Regula tions 1955 that it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and that there is a dynamic and rational nexus between the impugned second proviso and the object to be achieved
There is no discrimination whatsoever involved on account of the introduction of the second proviso in question and the said proviso is not ultra vires Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India
Before parting with the judgment we feel that it has become necessary to give a specif ic direction to the respondents inclusive of the Union Public Service Commission in pursu ance of the earlier directions given in our order dated 7121990 vide Annexure A  which directions were given in pursuance of various interim orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi and thereafter finally in its final 107 judgments dated 20890 41090 and 51090
For ready reference and to have a proper perspective we would like to proliferate the following passage from our earlier order dated 7121990 Hence we permit all those candidates failing under Para Nos 5 ii 6 and 7 to sit for the main examination subject to the condition that each candidate satisfies the Secretary Union Public Service Commission
that  heshe falls within these categories and that the concern candidates have passed the preliminary exami nation of 1990 and have also applied for the main examination within the due date
This permission is only for the ensuing examina tion
As we are now permitting those who have passed the preliminary examination of 1990 and have applied for the main examination on the basis of the unquestioned and unchallenged directions given under paras 5ii 6 and 7 of the judgment of the CAT Principal Bench New Delhi the same benefit is extended to the other appellants also who satisfy those condi tions as mentioned under paras 5ii 6 and 7
 On the strength of the above order we direct the re spondents inclusive of the Union Public Service Commission that all those candidates who have appeared for the Civil Services Main Examination 1990 pursuant to our permis sion given in the order dated 71290 and who have come out successfully in the said examination and thereby have quali fied themselves for the intervieW that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily qualify themselves by getting through the written examinations as well as the interview shall be given proper allocation and appointment on the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second proviso and our present judgment upholding the validity of the said proviso since the respondents have not questioned and challenged the directions given by CAT Principal Bench Delhi in para graphs 5ii 6 and 7 of its judgment dated 2081990
We would like to make it clear that the unchallenged direction given by the CAT in its judgment as well as directions given by us in our order dated 71290 are not controlled by any rider in the sense that the said directions were subject to the result of the cases and hence those directions would be confined only to those candidates who appeared for CSE 1990 and no further
The seniority of those successful candidates in CSE 1990 would depend on the service to which they have qualified
The seniority of the left out candidates would be maintained in case they have joined the service to which they have been allocated on the result of previous CSE and such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of seniority as held by the CAT Delhi in its judgment
108 In the result for the reasons aforementioned the judg ments of the Tribunal are confirmed subject to the above directions and all the appeals are dismissed accordingly
No order as to costs
ORDER We have heard all the learned counsel appearing in their respective appeals and also the learned Additional Solicitor for respondents for a very considerable length of time
The main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of all the appellants is that the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I Section dated December 17 1988 is offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to law
As the above question requires a careful examination with regard to the individual cases listed for consideration and as we are informed that the Central Services Examination Commences on 17121990 we arc constrained to give the following directions on the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi in its judgment dated 20th August 1990
The relevant conclusions as they appear from the concluding portion of the judgment of the Tribunal are as follows 5ii
A candidate who has been allocated to the IPS or to a Central Services Group A  May be allowed to sit at the next Civil Service Examination provided he is within the permissible age limit without having to resign from the service to which he has been allocated nor would he lose his original seniority in the service to which he is allo cated if he is unable to take training with his own Batch
Those applicants who have been allocated to the IPS or any Central Services Group A  can have one more attempt in the subse quent Civil Services Examination for the services indicated in Rule 17 of the CSE Rules
The Cadre Controlling Authorities can grant one opportunity to such candidates
All these candidates who have been allo cated to any of the Central Services Group A  or IPS and who have appeared in Civil Services Main Examination of a subsequent year under the interim orders of the Tribunal for the Civil Services Examination in 1988 or 1989 and have succeeded are to be given benefit of their success subject to the provisions of Rule 17 of the CSE Rules
But this exemp tion will not be available for any subsequent Civil Services Examination
109 It is pertinent to note that the respondent has not challenged the above directions given in the concluding part of the judgment
So far as the conclusions under para Nos 6 and 7 reproduced above the learned Additional Solicitor General states that the respondent has no objection to have them sustained
So far as the directions under para No 5 ii is concerned the Tribunal has allowed the candidates who have been allocated to the IPS or the Central Serv ices Group A  to sit at the next Civil Service Examination subject to the condition that they must be within the per missible age limit and without having to resign from the service to which they have been allocated nor would they lose their original seniority in the service to which they are allocated if they are unable to take training with their own Batch
The Tribunal has used their expression may be allowed to sit at the next Civil Service Examination but it did not restrict it only with regard to the preliminary examination as now contended by the learned Additional Solicitor according to whom those candidates are not eligi ble to sit for the main examination since the Tribunal has upheld the validity of the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules
In order to properly understand and appreciate the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal under para 5ii we shall reproduce some interim orders made by the Tribunal during the hearing of the OAs
In MP No 126990 in OA No 107490 dated 3151990 which has given rise to SLP Civil Nos
13525 3890 the CAT New Delhi has passed the following order We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter
In our opinion a direction should be issued to the respondents to permit the applicants to appear in the preliminary CSE 1990 without press ing for their resignations from the service and respondents may also grant them necessary leave etc
This interim order will be subject to the order in OA 2061989 and connected cases
 Interim order passed on 461990 in Regn
No 0A16090 by CAT New Delhi which has given rise to Civil Appeal No 547090 reads thus The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has applied for the 1990 Civil Services Preliminary Examination well in time and has also received Roll Number from the Union Public Service Commission and that he is not being allowed to appear in the Examination in view of the power conferred by the second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination 1987
The examination is going to be held on 1061990
In view of this we direct that if it is convenient and administratively possible the respondents shall allow the ap 110 plicant provisionally to appear in the said examination
Respondents may also consider granting him necessary leave etc
for the purpose
Issue dasti
 In MP No 125190 in OA No9441989 which has given rise to Civil Appeal No 547190 CAT New Delhi has passed the following order We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we think it will be in the interest of justice to allow the prayer for interim order to enable the petitioner to sit in the prelim inary CSE 1990
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has received the admission card
He is directed to give the Registration NoRoll No to the Secretary UPSC by 461990
We direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the preliminary CSE 1990 without press ing for his resignation from the service and also grant him necessary leave etc
for ap pearing in the said examination
This interim order will be subject to the order in OA
9441989
The Misc
Petition is accordingly disposed of
Order dasti
 In OA 91390 MP 113390 and CA No 91490 MP 113490 which have given rise to Civil Appeal Nos
5506 552590 the Tribunal has passed the following order on 1751990 As regards interim relief the respondents are directed to permit the appli cants to appear in the Civil Services Examina tion 1990 and to provide necessary facilities like leave etc
to enable them to appear in the ensuing Civil Services Examination 1990 subject to the decisions in the Bunch of eases including OANo
20689 Alok Kurnar Ors
vs UOI List the matter on 2951990
Orders Dasti It seems no clarification has been sought for from the Tribunal by the respondents as to whether the expression next Civil Service Examination is confined only to the preliminary or whether it includes the main examination also
Though some of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal which we have extracted above show that the said interim orders were passed permitting the candidates to sit for the preliminary Central Service Examination of 1990 subject to the decisions of the OAs in the final judgment no restriction is shown
In other words the conclusion under para 5ii is 111 not limited subject to any contingency but on the other hand it is absolute
Therefore that expression in the absence of any specif ic restriction has to include both the preliminary as well as the main examinations
Hence in the absence of any chal lenge to the directions embodied in the impugned judgment we hold that all those candidates falling under para No 5ii can sit both for the preliminary as well as the main examinations Subject to their eligibility otherwise
The condition incorporated in the later part of the impugned proviso that they should resign from the service to which they have been allocated would not operate against them for the main examination of 1990 lest that direction would be meaningless
Hence we permit all those candidates falling under Para Nos5ii 6 and 7 to sit for the main examination subject to the condition that each candidate satisfies the Secretary Union Public Service Commission that heshe falls within these categories and that the concerned candidates have passed the preliminary examination of 1990 and have also applied for the main examination within the due date
This permission is only for the ensuing examination
As we are now permitting those who have passed the preliminary examination of 1990 and have applied for the main examina tion on the basis of the unquestioned and unchallenged directions given under paras 5ii 6 and 7 of the judgment of the CAT Principal Bench New Delhi the same benefit is extended to the other appellants also who satisfy those conditions as mentioned under paras 5ii 6 and 7
The Secretary Union Public Service Commission will make the necessary arrangements enabling the candidates to sit for the main examination of 1990
We will give the judgment touching on the constitution ality of the second proviso to Rule 4 of CSE Rules later
We would once again like to state that the above directions are given only on the basis of the unchallenged conclusions arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
TNA Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was declared elected to the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the first respondent filed an election petition challenging the election inter alia on the ground that the appellant had committed the corrupt practice under section 1237f Representation of the People Act 1951 by obtaining the assistance of Sarpanches of certain Grama Panchayats for the furtherance of the prospects of his election
The petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal but on appeal was allowed by the High Court and the election was set aside
The High Court held that a Sarpanch was a person in the service of the Government with in the meaning of section I237f Of the Act
Held that a Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat in Orissa was not one of the persons contemplated by section I237f and consequently the appellant was not guilty of any corrupt practice in obtaining assistance of Sarpanches
Two conditions must co exist before S1237f could apply to a Sarpanch i that he was in the service of the Government and ii that he fell within the class 953 specified in cl
There was a distinction between  serving under the Government  and  in the service of the Government  while one may serve under a Government one may not necessarily be in the service of the Government under the latter expression one not only served under the Government but was in the service of the Government and this imported the relationship of master and servant
None of the provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act 1948 suggested that as between the State Government and the Grama Panchayat and its Sarpanch any such relationship existed
The mere power of control and supervision of Government over a Grama Panchayat exercising administrative functions or performing duties of governmental nature could not make the Grama Panchayat or its Sarpanch a person in the service of the Government
The Sarpanch was the executive head of the Grama Panchayat  he was neither appointed nor paid by the Government he could only be removed by Government on grounds of negligence inefficiency or misbehaviour
He was not under the control of the Government while discharging his functions and could not be said to be in service of the Government
The second condition also did not exist as a Sarpanch was neither a revenue officer nor a village accountant and as such was not one of the class of officers mentioned in cl
f of section 1237