Sec., U.P.S.C. & Anr vs S. Krishna Chaitanya

3. According to the case of the respondent, being desirous of taking Civil Services Examination, 2010, he had filled up his application form and had sent the same to UPSC through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. The respondent had handed over his application form to the above named courier on 28th January, 2010, and the courier had intimated to the respondent that the application form was delivered to UPSC on 29th January, 2010. Thus, according to the respondent, his application form had been duly received by UPSC and, therefore, he was expecting his admission certificate but as he had not received it even in the month of April, 2010, he had made a representation to the appellants on 20th April, 2010, making a grievance with regard to non-issuance of admission certificate to him. In pursuance of the aforestated representation made by the respondent, a letter dated 23rd April, 2010, was addressed to the respondent whereby he was informed that his application for Civil Services Examination (Preliminary), 2010 had not been received by the appellants and the respondent was also 3 requested to furnish acknowledgment card duly stamped by UPSC to enable the appellants to take further action in the matter.

8. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent took the Civil Services Examination (Mains) and also appeared for the oral interview. The final result has not been declared and it has been retained by the appellants in a sealed cover. Interlocutory Application No.1 has been filed by the respondent before this Court praying for directions to the appellants to declare the result of the respondent and keep a post vacant in a particular cadre so as to enable him to join the service. The said application is also pending for hearing.

7. The aforestated order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court by the appellants by filing Writ Petition No.33367 of 2010. After hearing the concerned advocates and after considering the above facts, the High Court disposed of the petition by observing that the respondent be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains) and should also be permitted to appear for the interview, if he is qualified in the Civil Services 6 Examination (Mains). With the aforesaid observations, the petition was disposed of by the High Court.

21. In our opinion, on the basis of the aforestated record, by no stretch of imagination one can say that the respondent's application form had been received by the appellants.

26. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be directed to declare the final result of the respondent, especially when his application form had not been received by the appellants within the period prescribed. We ignore the second application form which was submitted by him in pursuance of the direction given by the Tribunal. 1

27. We may add here that this Court has observed time and again that an interim order should not be of such a nature that by virtue of which a petition or an application, as the case may be, is finally allowed or granted even at an interim stage. We reiterate that normally at an interlocutory stage no such relief should be granted that by virtue of which the final relief, which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is granted. We, however, find that very often courts are becoming more sympathetic to the students and by interim orders authorities are directed to permit the students to take an examination without ascertaining whether the concerned candidate had a right to take the examination. For any special reason in an exceptional case, if such a direction is given, the court must dispose of the case finally on merits before declaration of the result. In the instant case, we have found that the respondent not only took the preliminary examination but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by virtue of interim orders though he had no right to take any of the examinations. In our opinion, grant of such interim orders should be avoided as they not only increase work of the institution which conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates approaching the court.

28. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment delivered by the High Court as well as the order of the Tribunal with no order as to costs. The Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent is also rejected.

..............................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi August 5, 2011.