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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. WRIT PETITION NO.21129 OF 2002
D.D. 17.7.2002
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mathur &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra
Ajeet Pratap Singh
Vs.
... Petitioner
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Examination:
Whether UPSC is justified in rejecting candidature of a candidate on the ground that the application
is incomplete? – Yes
Petitioner’s candidature for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2002, was rejected as he
had not indicated his educational qualification in the application form – High Court in view of the fact
that the applicant had left the relevant column blank in violation of Instruction No.4 - Do not leave any
relevant column blank and incomplete application will be rejected, dismissed the writ petition at the
admission stage holding that the application was rightly rejected.
Case referred:
Union Public Service Commission
1997 (3) JT 587 - L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India
ORDER
The petitioner applied for Civil Service (Preliminary) Examinations, 2002, and filled in the prescribed
form for the said purpose. His candidature was rejected on the ground that he had not indicated his
educational qualifications in the application form. He then filed the writ petition on 16.5.2002 and a
Division Bench passed an interim order whereby the petitioner was permitted to appear in the Preliminary
examination, which was going to be held on 19.5.2002.
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.Chandrakumar 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, we have
heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case.
5