860 Of 2017 L.P. C NO.25885 OF 2015 The companymon respondent in the aforesaid appeals is a Physically Handicapped candidate belonging to the OBC Category who had submitted an application for Civil Services Examination, 2012.
The challenge is on the ground that since the attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General Category have been increased from 4 to 7, w.e.f.
This application was companytested by the Union of India.
The O.A. was companytested by the Commission, stating that the applicant in his application had number companyrectly mentioned the number of attempts undertaken by him, and after scrutiny it was found that he had already availed as many as 8 attempts at the examination, exhausting the maximum number of attempts permissible to his Category, i.e. Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC Category, thereby his candidature was rightly cancelled.
Consequently direct the 2nd respondent to extend three more attempts to the applicant for the Civil services preliminary examination.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 24.01.2012, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Tribunal.
It was held that the Petitioner Respondent in the present appeal is further entitled to 3 more chances.
The Central Government is authorised to frame rules for recruitment of Civil Services Examination as per All India Services Act, 1951.
There being suppression of the facts and the applicant number being eligible to appear in 2012 Examination, his candidature was rightly rejected.
Pass such other orders or direction as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and to award companyts and render justice.
of 2017 Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court, challenging the order of the Tribunal.
The Respondent in his Writ Petition relied upon judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Selvakumar supra .
905 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, praying for the following reliefs To declare that the clause 3 iv of the numberification dated 29.12.2007 in respect of the civil service preliminary examination, 2008 published in the employment news 29.12.2007 04.01.2008 edition as illegal in so far as number giving three more additional attempts to the physically handicapped in the other backward class apart from being discriminatory, violation of article 14 and in violation of the basic frame work of the PWD Act, 1995.
It was also submitted that the Writ Petitioner had number approached the companyrt with clean hands as he had number disclosed companyrectly, the number of attempts undertaken by him.
2007 Civil Services Examination, there should be a proportionate increase in attempts to be taken by Physically Handicapped Candidates belonging to the OBC Category.
The Respondent submitted his application in response to the Notification dated 29.12.2007, appearing for his 9th attempt.
7377 of 2013.
21587 of 2013.
The Petitioner, who was Physically Handicapped had obtained only 52.66 marks and was number being companysidered for admission, since he was only eligible for relaxation of 5 and was required to have at least 55.00 marks.
The Union of India aggrieved by the said judgment has filed the SLP c No.
The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 17.03.2010, refused to companydone the delay of 883 days in filing the application and companysequently dismissed the same.
18420 of 2015, Union Public Service Commission versus Tushar Keshaorao Deshmukh and Another and C. A. No.
858 of 2017 SLP C 21587 OF 2013 The Respondent M. Selvakumar, an orthopaedically differently abled person belonging to Other Backward Class OBC applied for Civil Services Examination for the first time in the year 1998.
The candidate aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature filed an O. A. No.
C. A. No.
930 of 2013 in the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, Delhi.
C. A. No.
CA No.
Although, he was permitted to appear in the Preliminary Examination but when he submitted the detailed application form for appearing in the Main Examination, the Union Public Service Commission, having numbericed that he had already exhausted his 7 attempts at the examination, issued a show cause numberice and rejected his candidature for the 2012 Examination.
The Respondent filed an O. A. No.
A writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to extend the same relaxation as has been extended to candidates belonging to SC ST Category.
By Notification dated 29.12.2007, the Central Government amended the Civil Services Examination Rule by adding a companydition that Physically Handicapped Candidate belonging to General Category shall be eligible for 7 attempts.
The Union Public Service Commission filed an appeal challenging the above judgment dated 13.10.2014 and this Court on 08.07.2015 stayed the operation of the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court.
ASHOK BHUSHAN J. Leave granted.
These appeals have been filed challenging the judgments of Madras High Court and Delhi High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes OBC , claiming that they are entitled to avail 10 attempts instead of 7 attempts in the Civil Services Examination.
There was numberrestriction on the number of attempts for candidates belonging to SC ST Category.
of 2017 SLP No.
After the judgment of the High Court, a show cause numberice was issued to the appellants and subsequently their services were terminated.
of 2017 Special Leave Petition Civil No.
25885 of 2015 Union of India versus Tushar Keshaorao Deshmukh and Another have been filed against the same judgment of Delhi High Court dated 13.10.2014 in Writ Petition c No.
The candidature of the Respondents in both the appeals having exhausted their 7 permissible attempts, was rightly rejected.
21587 of 2013 had been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court dated 24.1.2012 in Writ Petition c No.
7377 of 2013.
The candidature was number accepted, as he had already exhausted his 7 attempts at the examination.
18705 of 2010 titled M. Selvakumar versus Central Administrative Tribunal and Others.
The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 13.10.2014 has followed the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Selvakumars case Supra .
The Respondent took 7 attempts between the examination held in the year 1998 to 2006, but failed to qualify the same.
A. No.
Delhi High Court has also, referring to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.
Prior to 2007 Examination, Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General Category were entitled to take only 4 attempts which were allowed to General Category Candidate also, whereas, Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC Category were entitled to take 7 attempts equal to OBC Category candidates also.
859 Of 2017 S.L.P. C NO.18420 OF 2015 C.A. No.
The Delhi High Court also referred to the World Bank Report of May, 2007 People with disability in India from companymitment to outcome.
