THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.33367 and 33393 of 2010 COMMON ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) Since the common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they are being disposed of together by this common order. 2. Both these writ petitions are filed assailing the legality and validity of the orders, dated 01.09.2010, passed in O.A.Nos.470 and 505 of 2010 respectively, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 3. In pursuance of notification, dated 02.01.2010, the first respondent in both the writ petitions applied for UPSC Civil Services Exams (Prelims), 2010, sent their applications through DTDC Courier Service on 28.01.2010 and the Courier Office confirmed that their applications were delivered at the petitioners’ office at New Delhi on 29.01.2010. As they did not receive their hall tickets, they checked the UPSC website and came to know that their applications have not been received by the UPSC. They submitted representations to the first petitioner but in vain. Hence, they filed the above said O.As.,seeking to direct the petitioners to permit them to appear the examination of UPSC Civil Services (Prelims), scheduled to be held on 23.05.2010. The Tribunal vide order, dated 12.05.2010, gave an interim direction to the petitioners to permit the first respondent in both the writ petitions to write preliminary examination, but the result would be subject to the outcome of the O.As. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that since it is very difficult to come to a definite conclusion at this point of time about the fate of the application forms sent by the applicants in January, benefit of doubt should be given to them and accordingly, permitted them to go through the selection process without any further hitch and allowed the O.As directing the petitioners to declare their result immediately, if it is withheld, and to permit the applicants to write Civil Services (Mains) Examination, 2010, if they are successful in the Prelims, and also to appear for the interview, if they are successful in the Mains. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for UPSC appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent in both the writ petitions. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contended that the applications sent by the first respondent in both the writ petitions have not been received by UPSC as per its records and that the Tribunal ought not to have given benefit of doubt to them as it is a service matter and it should be on equitable grounds not as a precedent. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent in both the writ petitions submitted that the first respondent in W.P.No.33393 of 2010 has not passed the Prelims and that as the first respondent in W.P.No.33367 of 2010 has passed the Prelims, his case may be considered for Mains and for interview, if he is qualified in the Mains. 7. Admittedly, the first respondent in both the writ petitions have appeared for Prelims as per the interim order passed by the Tribunal. As it is represented that the first respondent, by name, Ramesh Kagade, in W.P.No.33393 of 2010 has not passed the Prelims, he is not entitled to appear for Mains and therefore, no orders are necessary in W.P.No.33393 of 2010. 8. Since it is represented that the first respondent, by name, S.Krishna Chaitanya, in W.P.No.33367 of 2010, has passed the Prelims, he is entitled to appear for the Mains. However, it is needless to observe that the Tribunal already gave a direction to the petitioners to permit him to write Mains if he is qualified in the Prelims and further to appear for interview, if he is qualified in Mains. 9. Subject to the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:07.02. 2011 sj