Union of India & Ors Vs. Shri Parmanand
 INSC 968 (19
K. Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
O R D
respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in CPWD on the basis of result of
the competitive examinations held by the Director General (Works) on March 1, 1977.
as a result of the recruitment made by the U.P.S.C.in the year 1982, the
respondent. was selected as Assistant Engineer and was appointed in that
capacity by the Director General (Works), CPWD by proceedings dated July 14, 1987.
question arose: whether he would be entitled to be absorbed in the C.P.W.D.
where he, admittedly, has worked for 18 years or be allotted to other
department. The respondent has relied upon Rule 15 the Rules of the Combined
Service Examination Rules, 1989 [for short, the "Rules"] which reads
as follows :
candidates will, however be first considered for appointment to service/posts
in their own department and only in the event of non-availability of vacancies
therein or medical unfitness of such candidates for the services/posts under
their own departments, they shall be considered for allotment to the
services/posts in other Ministries/Departments on the basis of preferences
expressed by them." Relying upon that Rule, the Tribunal in the impugned
order dated January 23,
1996 made in O.A.No.
1565 of 1991 directed the petitioner to do as under:
four candidates were Sarvshri Prakash Rawat, A.K.Das, Mathura Prasad and Ravi Amrohi.
counsel for the applicant has made a statement before us that the last named
candidate, Shri Ravi Amrohi, whose rank was 258 left the department even though
he had initially accepted the offer of appointment. If that be the position,
then it would be possible to adjust the applicant against his vacancy.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to adjust the applicant against the
vacancy of Shri Ravi Amrohi and in case Shri Ravi Amrohi is still in service
then they should adjust the applicant against the next available vacancy with
all consequential benefits as regards seniority. The appeal is accordingly
allowed. There will be no order as to costs." It is contended for the
petitioners that the intention of the Government was that such of the
candidates who have been in the department but secured higher ranking should be
adjusted in the existing vacancies in the order of merit. If candidates do not
come up in the merit, they have to be adjusted in other departments. Since the
respondent had secured 295th rank as against others who were also similarly
selected as reserved candidates, the respondent cannot get adjusted and
appointed in CPWD. We find no force in the contention. It is true that as per
list-annexure III his name was downgraded as against others whose names found
place at Sl.Nos.259 and thereafter. But the reading of the list would indicate
that the candidate who secured higher merit position than the respondent had
been allotted in the order of merit to CPWD. In that behalf they relied upon
the rule as amended in 1990 and sought to support the action takes thereunder.
The Tribunal has rightly found that as on the date Rule 15 of the Rules was in
vogue which envisages that when the recruitment comes to be made and candidate
is duly selected, he should be appointed and adjusted also in the vacancies
existing in the department in which he had worked. It clearly indicates that
the candidates working in the respective departments are first required to be
adjusted unless there is no vacancy existing or they are found medically unfit
to hold that post. In that event, they are required to be adjusted in other
departments. The subsequent amendment does not have any effect of taking away
his right to be adjusted when the Rule was in vogue. The Tribunal was,
therefore, right in giving direction as indicated above .
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.