Two companytentions were raised before the Tribunal.
By the said letter he was directed to intimate specifically if he was interested in joining the Central Industrial Security Force Group A CISF or number.
Aggrieved by that companymunication dated 17.12.91 the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the action of the authorities as arbitrary and illegal.
3114 of 1991, is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
He did numberhing.
He was further informed that a formal offer of appointment would be sent to him by the companycerned Cadre Controlling Authority of the Service after final service allocation was made.
On 9.9.91 he received a letter dated 31.8.91 intimating that he was being companysidered for appointment to the IRS on the basis of the result of 1990 Examination.
He was also given an opportunity to revise the order of preferences indicated by him earlier.
As he was selected for the IRS he resigned as an Engineer in the Border Roads Engineering Service and reported at the Academy at Hyderabad for the third foundational companyrse meant for probationers joining IRS.
Before the result of 1990 Examination was declared he received a letter dated 9.1.91 from the UPSC on 14.1.91 informing him that as a result of some candidates number joining or number being available eligible for appointment or number being found medically fit, his name was recommended through a supplementary list prepared on the basis of the result of 1989 Examination.
Then by a letter dated 21.6.91, received by him in the first week of July 1991, he was offered an appointment as Assistant Commandant in the CISF.
he, therefore, appeared at the CSE 1991.
The written Examination companymenced on 17.12.90 and ended on 28.12.90.
This high ranking in the merit list enabled him to be allocated to a better Group A service, namely, Indian Revenue Service IRS .
He was informed that it was only a tentative allocation and might undergo a change on companysideration of his rank and expressed preferences.
Preliminary Examination was held on 9.6.90, and its result was declared on 7.8.90.
He was declared qualified to appear in the Main Examination.
He was further informed that in view of the provisions companytained in the second proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules he was number eligible for allocation to Group A service on the basis of the 1990 Examination and was, therefore, number so allocated.
The appellant did number respond to this letter and remained silent.
He was directed to report to the Director, S.V.P.N.P. Academy, Hyderabad on 15.9.91, if he was willing to be companysidered for appointment to that Service.
On 20.12.91 he received a letter dated 17.12.91 from the Ministry of Personnel and Training informing him that on the basis of the result of the 1989 Examination he was allocated to CISF and that he should report to the Assistant Director, National Industrial Security Academy at Hyderabad for basic training companymencing from 30.12.91 immediately after companyclusion of the foundational companyrse which he was undergoing.
Meanwhile, the appellant having passed some other UPSC Examination was appointed on 25.2.91 to the Border Roads Engineering Services.
This time also he remained silent and did number inform the authorities that he was number willing to accept it.
The result of the examination was declared on 31.5.90 He was number recommended by the UPSC for any appointment.
He was also informed that if he desired to accept the offer then he should despatch the agreement and the declaration and companyplete other formalities.
NANAVATI, J. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, new Delhi, dismissing his O.A. No.
In the first week of June 1991 the result of the CSE 1990 Main was declared and on the basis thereof he was called to appear in the interview personality test.
The appellant appeared at the Civil Services Examination CSE held by the Union Public Service Commission UPSC in the year 1989.
