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

82
examinations to be conducted by the Commission for a period of 10 years effective from 10.03.2006,
is not valid. We find that the order also cancelled his candidature for the Civil Service Examinations
held in the year 2005. It is his case that being a physically disabled person, from the lower rungs of the
society, the order violates his basic rights for being appointed to a public office.
2. The contention highlighted is that in view of the Notification of UPSC issued in 2008, the
order debarring him has no legs to stand and the bar that had been imposed on him could not have put
into operation and requires to be revoked. He had cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in
B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995 (6) SCC 749) which, according to him, had
emphasized the duty of the High Court/Tribunal to do ‘complete justice’ between the parties, in line
with the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
3. Before issuing the impugned order, a show cause notice had been issued to the applicant
where under he was to explain as to why proceedings were not to be initiated against him under Rules
4 and 14 of the Rules for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2005. The applicant had applied for
partaking the 2005 Civil Service Examination. In the relevant column, he had declared that he had
made only three attempts, in respect of the Civil Service Examination. On verification, it was revealed
that he had suppressed the details in respect of his candidature in the year 1996-97 and 2001. When
rules allowed only four attempts, it had been found that he was attempting a fifth time by suppressing factual
details. After hearing his version and finding no merit in the stand, the impugned order had been issued.
4. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that in any case the application is not maintainable
since the huge delay has not been appropriately explained. He suggested that it could not be possible
to be explained also. After acquiescing to the order, later on when it was found that there was a
relaxation in the number of attempts introduced by the rules of 2008, the applicant was trying to steal
benefits from that order. But 2008 rules had no retrospective effect and as far as the applicant’s case
was concerned, it was a closed chapter and no relaxation, therefore, was possible.
5. When we advert to the provisions of the rules, we find that on the date on which the applicant
made a declaration, it was evidently wrong. He practically had admitted the above. The subsequent
change in the rules was not sufficient enough to rectify or overreach the position that had come to be
settled. Therefore, we find that the application is misconceived. We also notice that the limitation
which had set in could not have been possible to be counted for the reasons stated in the application.
6. In the result, we dismiss the O.A. However, there will be no order as to costs.
***