Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

4
Sri. Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that
the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and
the petitioner should have first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal as held by the Supreme
Court in L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) JT 587. In view of the fact that the writ
petition has already been entertained by a Division Bench on 17.5.2002 and an interim order was
passed in favour of the petitioner, permitting him to appear in the Preliminary examination and also to
avoid unnecessary hardship to him, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of
the case.
Union Public Service Commission
Sri. Satish Chaturvedi has produced before us a photocopy of the application form which was
submitted by the petitioner. Column 19 of the form requires that the candidate should indicate the
optional subject in which he wants to take the examination. In this column the petitioner gave the code
of his optional subject as 01. The advertisement shows that the code for Agriculture subject is – 01
while the code for Indian History is 10. This shows that the petitioner himself mentioned Agriculture as
his optional subject. In these circumstances, there was no mistake in the admit card which was sent to
the petitioner as the petitioner never indicated that he wanted to appear in History as an optional
subject. Instruction no.7 of the information brochure reads as under:
“7. No addition/alteration in the entries made in the form is allowed at any subsequent
stage”
The aforesaid condition clearly shows that a candidate cannot change the entries made in the
application form at any subsequent stage. The plea of the petitioner that he wants to appear in the
subject of History, therefore, cannot be accepted at the present stage.
There is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
***