REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.    6349             OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. © No.11779 of 2011)

SEC., U.P.S.C. & ANR. .....APPELLANTS        

        VERSUS

S. KRISHNA CHAITANYA          .....RESPONDENT.

With  Interlocutory Application No.1

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being  aggrieved  by  the  Judgment  and  Order  dated  7.2.2001  

passed in W.P. No.33367 of 2010 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at  

1

Hyderabad, confirming the Order dated 1st September, 2010, passed by the  

Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Hyderabad  Bench  at  Hyderabad,   this  

appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  appellants  –  the  Secretary  and   the  Joint  

Secretary of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

3. According  to  the  case  of  the  respondent,  being  desirous  of  

taking Civil  Services Examination,  2010, he had filled up his application  

form and had sent the same to UPSC through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.  

The respondent had handed over his application form to the above named  

courier  on  28th January,  2010,  and  the  courier  had  intimated  to  the  

respondent that the application form was delivered to UPSC on 29th January,  

2010.  Thus, according to the respondent,   his application form had been  

duly  received  by UPSC and,   therefore,  he  was  expecting  his  admission  

certificate  but as he had not received it even in the month of April, 2010, he  

had made a representation to the appellants on 20th April, 2010, making a  

grievance with regard to non-issuance of admission certificate to him.    In  

pursuance of the aforestated representation made by the respondent, a letter  

dated 23rd  April, 2010, was addressed to the respondent whereby he was  

informed that his application for Civil Services Examination (Preliminary),  

2010 had not been received by the appellants and the respondent was also  

2

requested to furnish acknowledgment card duly stamped by UPSC to enable  

the appellants to take further action in the matter.

4. As the respondent had not received any acknowledgement card  

from the appellants,  the  respondent  rushed to  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A. No.470 of 2010 praying  inter alia for  

an interim relief to the effect that the appellants be directed to furnish an  

admission certificate to the respondent so that the respondent can take the  

examination.   By  an  interim  order  dated  12th May,  2010,  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal  directed  the  respondent  to  submit  a  copy of  his  

application form to the appellants  and directed the appellants  to issue an  

admission certificate  to the respondent so that the respondent can take the  

examination.  It was clarified that the admission certificate  would be subject  

to the final result of the said original application.

5. In  pursuance  of  the  aforestated  interim  order  passed  by  the  

Central  Administrative  Tribunal  (CAT),  the  respondent  had  filed  another  

application form which was received by the appellants around   17th May,  

2010  and in pursuance of the said application form, an admission certificate  

was issued to the respondent and he took the Civil Services Examination  

(Preliminary).

3

6. The aforestated  original  application  was finally  heard by  the  

CAT   and  by  an  Order  dated  1st September,  2010,  the  application  was  

allowed,  whereby   the  appellants  were  directed  to  declare  result  of  the  

respondent and if he was found qualified, he should be permitted to take the  

Civil Services Examination (Mains), 2010.  While allowing the application,  

the Tribunal had considered reply filed on behalf of the appellants.  It was  

stated in the reply filed on behalf of the appellants that no application form  

from the respondent was received by the appellants.   The respondent had  

specifically stated that his application form bearing No.37573985 had been  

submitted through the courier named hereinabove to the appellants on 29th  

January,  2010  at  4  p.m.   The  respondent  had  mainly  relied  upon  an  

acknowledgement  given  to  him  by  the  courier  to  the  effect  that  his  

application form had been delivered to the appellants on 29th January,  2010  

at 4 p.m. and an affidavit had also been filed in support of the said averment  

by  Shri  V.S.  Kumar  Raju,  Manager,  Administration,  Regional  Office  of  

DTDC,  Hyderabad.  The  aforestated  averments  of  the  respondent  were  

specifically denied by the deponent of an affidavit  filed on behalf of the  

appellants.  While passing the final order,  the Tribunal had considered the  

above  facts  and  had  also  observed  about  two  possibilities  -  either  the  

application  form  of  the  respondent  was  misplaced  in  the  office  of  the  

4

appellants or the courier agency had failed to deliver the application form of  

the respondent to the appellants.   The Tribunal did not come to the final  

conclusion that the application form of the respondent was delivered to the  

appellants or the appellants in fact had received the application form of the  

respondent.  Though the Tribunal observed in its order that it was difficult to  

come to a definite conclusion that the application form of the respondent  

was in fact received by the appellants,  the Tribunal gave a final direction to  

the appellants to declare the result of the respondent and if he was found  

successful in the Civil Services Examination (Preliminary), he should also  

be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains) and should also  

be permitted  to  appear  for  interview.   Thus,  the  application  filed  by the  

respondent was allowed by the Tribunal by the order dated 1st September,  

2010.   

7. The aforestated order of the Tribunal was challenged before the  

High Court by the appellants  by filing  Writ  Petition No.33367 of 2010.  

After hearing the concerned advocates and after considering the above facts,  

the High Court disposed of the petition by observing that the respondent be  

permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains) and should also be  

permitted to appear for the interview, if he is qualified in the Civil Services  

5

Examination  (Mains).   With  the  aforesaid  observations,  the  petition  was  

disposed of by the High Court.

8. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the aforesaid  

proceedings,  the respondent took the Civil  Services  Examination (Mains)  

and also  appeared  for  the  oral  interview.   The  final  result  has  not  been  

declared  and  it  has  been  retained  by  the  appellants  in  a  sealed  cover.  

Interlocutory Application No.1 has been filed by the respondent before this  

Court  praying for directions to the appellants  to declare the result  of the  

respondent and keep a post vacant in a particular cadre so as to enable him to  

join the service.  The said application is also pending for hearing.

9. Mr.  Parag  P.  Tripathi,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order of the High  

Court confirming the order of the Tribunal is absolutely unjust and improper  

especially in view of the fact that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court  

had come to any final conclusion that the application form of the respondent  

was in fact submitted to the appellants.

10. The learned counsel apprised us of the procedure with regard to  

acceptance  of  application  forms and he had also  kept  the  entire  relevant  

record  pertaining  to  the  application  forms  regarding  the  Civil  Services  

Examination,  2010  in  this  Court.   He  explained  to  us  as  to  how  an  

6

application form was being received by the appellants.  He submitted that as  

per  normal  practice  of  the  appellants,   whenever  any  application  form  

pertaining to the Civil Services Examination is sent by post, the candidate  

sending it by post is supposed to enclose a self addressed  acknowledgement  

card,  with postal stamp affixed,  along with the application form.  The said  

acknowledgement  card  is  returned  by  the  appellants  to  the  concerned  

candidate  with  a  distinct  numerical  mark  affixed  thereon.   The  

acknowledgement card is sent by post to the concerned candidate.  If any  

application form is received by the appellants either through hand delivery  

or through a courier, the person who hands over the application form to a  

representative of the appellants at a particular counter, would be given an  

acknowledgement card after affixing  a stamp having a distinct numerical  

mark.

11. He further stated that a facsimile of each stamp having distinct  

numerical  mark is also retained by affixing it in a register maintained by the  

appellants so that in an event of any effort to forge the acknowledgement  

mark, fraud can be detected easily.  The register containing such marks and  

record pertaining to the applications received on each day was placed before  

this Court for its perusal.

7

12. According to the leaned Additional Solicitor General,  in view  

of  the  aforestated  procedure,   if  the  application  form of  the  respondent  

bearing  No.37573985  had  been   received  by  the  appellants,  an  

acknowledgment  card  ought  to  have  been  received  by  the  courier’s  

representative,  who had personally handed over the application form to a  

representative of the appellants.  He further submitted that according to the  

respondent,  his application form was submitted on 29th January, 2010 at 4  

p.m.  A list of all applications,  which had been received on 29th January,  

2010,  was shown to this Court but in the said list,  there was no reference to  

the  application  form bearing  no.37573985,   belonging  to  the  respondent.  

He, therefore, submitted that in fact the application form of the respondent  

had not been received by the appellants.

13. The learned counsel  for the appellants  further  submitted that  

100  application  forms  and  record  pertaining  thereto  is  retained  in  one  

separate packet and he also explained the system whereby all  application  

forms are received and  processed by the appellants.  Even in the packets  

containing  application  forms  received  on  29th January,  2010,  the  

respondent’s form was not found.  

14. The learned counsel  further  submitted that  as  the application  

form of the respondent had never been received by the appellants, it would  

8

not be proper to declare result of the respondent because as per the case of  

the  appellants,   the  form of  the  respondent  was  never  submitted  to  the  

appellants.   In such an event,  declaration of  the  result  of  the respondent  

would be absolutely unjust and would set a wrong precedent.  He, therefore,  

submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the High Court  

confirming the order of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside.

15. On the other  hand,   Mr.  L.  Nageshwara  Rao,  learned senior  

counsel appearing for the respondent mainly submitted that the respondent  

had forwarded his application form through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.  

and the courier  had delivered the form to the appellants  on 29th January,  

2010.  He also relied upon an affidavit filed by a responsible officer of the  

above named courier agency stating that the respondent’s application form  

was delivered to U.P.S.C. on 29th January,  2010.  

16. He  further  submitted  that  there  was  no  reason  for  the  

respondent  to make any false averment with regard to submission of the  

application  form  because  the  respondent  was  quite  serious  about  the  

examination  and  in  fact  he  had  passed  the  Civil  Services  Examination  

(Preliminary) and the respondent was quite hopeful of even succeeding in  

the  Civil  Services  Examination  (Mains)  and  oral  interview.   He  further  

submitted that there was no reason for the courier agency not to deliver the  

9

application form of the respondent and there was no reason for a responsible  

officer  of  the  courier  agency  to  file  a  false   affidavit  supporting  the  

respondent to the effect that his application form had been submitted to the  

appellants.

17. The learned counsel further submitted that by declaration of the  

result, there would be  no harm to anyone because if the respondent is not  

declared successful, he would not get any benefit but if in fact he is found  

successful in the examination as well as in the oral interview and if he is not  

given benefit of doubt, career of a bright young person would be ruined.  He,  

therefore,  submitted  that  the  judgment  of  the  High Court  confirming the  

order of the Tribunal is just and legal and, therefore, the appeal should be  

dismissed.

18. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  at  length  and  have  also  

meticulously gone through the relevant record produced before this Court by  

the learned Additional Solicitor General.

19. It is pertinent to note that the respondent, at no point of time,  

had adduced any evidence before the Tribunal or even before this Court to  

the  effect  that  the  appellants  had  received  the  application  form  of  the  

respondent bearing no.37573985.  

1

20. Right  from the beginning  i.e.  the  stage  at  which an  original  

application was filed before the Tribunal, the respondent had relied upon an  

affidavit  filed  by  the  Manager  Administration,   Regional  Office  of  the  

DTDC  Courier  and  Cargo  Ltd.,  having  its  branch  office  at  Hyderabad.  

According  to  his  affidavit,  the  respondent’s  application  form  had  been  

delivered to the appellants on 29th January, 2010.  The application form had  

not been delivered by him personally but  it was delivered by an employee  

of the above named courier agency and so as to substantiate his say,  he had  

relied upon the delivery Run Sheet No.12878919 dated 29th January, 2010.  

The said run sheet is a part of the record.  Upon perusal of the run sheet, we  

do  not  find  any  acknowledgement  given  by  any  of  the  officers  of  the  

appellants  to  the  effect  that  an  application  form  of  the  respondent  was  

received  by  the  appellants.   The  said  run  sheet  incorporates  numbers  of  

consignments which had been addressed to UPSC, Shahjahan Road, New  

Delhi.   Beyond numbers of five different consignments and name of UPSC,  

to whom the consignments were to be sent, there is no indication on the said  

run sheet that the said consignments were received on behalf of UPSC.       

21. In our opinion, on the basis of the aforestated record,  by no  

stretch of imagination one can say that the respondent’s application form had  

been received by the appellants.

1

22. As the case involves a career of a young man,  who can turn out  

to be a good civil servant, we had very meticulously gone through the record  

maintained  by  the  appellants.   Looking  to  the  system  which  is  being  

followed  by  the  appellants,  we  find  that  the  said  system  is  very  

comprehensive and flawless.  It is very clear that if the application form of  

the respondent had been received by the appellants in the manner provided,  

it would have been recorded somewhere.  Even the eight digit number of the  

application form of the respondent has not been recorded anywhere.  Receipt  

of  an application form through a courier is treated as ‘hand delivery’  by the  

appellants.  In case of receipt of an application by hand delivery, on the spot,  

an acknowledgement card stamped with a distinct numerical mark is handed  

over to the person who delivers the application form.  If the application form  

had been delivered by a representative of the courier agency to the office of  

the appellants,   there was no reason for the appellants not to give a duly  

stamped acknowledgement  card bearing a distinct numerical mark.  No such  

acknowledgment card, duly stamped, could be produced by the respondent  

or by the courier agency. Thus , on perusal of the record and looking the  

facts of the case, we come to a conclusion that no proof could be submitted  

by the respondent that the application form was received by the appellants.  

23. It is pertinent to note here that while passing the final order,  

1

even  the  Tribunal  was  not  sure  whether  the  application  form  of  the  

respondent was received by the appellants.  The Tribunal, in para 8 of its  

final order dated 1st September, 2010, has observed as under:  

“8. ………..It  is  quite  possible  that  the  applicant’s  application had been misplaced.  It is also quite possible that  the courier agency failed to deliver the application form of the  applicant at the respondent’s office……”.

Thus,  even  while  giving  final  direction  to  the  appellants  with  regard  to  

permitting  the  respondent  to  take  the  Civil  Services  Examination,  the  

Tribunal had not come to a definite finding and specific conclusion that the  

application form of the respondent was in fact received by the appellants but  

the same had been misplaced by the appellants.  In our opinion, in such a set  

of circumstances, it would not be proper to direct the appellants to permit the  

respondent to take the examination especially when there was nothing on  

record to show that the respondent had submitted his application form to the  

appellants.

24. We also record that there was some negligence on the part of  

the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had drawn  

our attention to the advertisement given by UPSC inviting applications from  

the  candidates  who  were  desirous  of  joining  civil  service  and   taking  

1

examination for that purpose. Clause 7 of the said advertisement relating to  

acknowledgement of application is  reproduced hereinbelow:

“7. Acknowledgment of applications:

Immediately on receipt of an application from a candidate, the  Acknowledgment  Card  submitted  by  him/her  alongwith  the  Application  Form  will  be  dispatched  to  him/her   by  the  Commission’s  Office  duly  stamped  in  token  of  receipt  of  his/her  Application.   If  a  candidate  does  not  receive  the  Acknowledgement Card within 30 days, he/she should at once  contact the Commission by quoting his/her Application Form  No.(8 digit)  and name and year of  examination.   Candidates  delivering the Application form in person at the Commission’s  Counter will be issued Acknowledgment Card at the Counter  itself.   The mere fact  that a candidate’s  application has been  acknowledged by the Commission does not mean that his/her  candidature  for  the  examination  has  been  accepted  by  the  Commission.   Candidates  will  be  informed  at  the  earliest  possible about their admission to the examination or rejection  of their application.”

25. According to the respondent, he had forwarded his application  

form through the aforestated courier on 28th January, 2010.  If the respondent  

did not receive any acknowledgment for a period of 30 days from the date  

on which he had forwarded his application form, he ought to have made  

necessary enquiry in the office of the appellants.  Even according to the case  

of  the  respondent,   for  the  first  time on 20th  April,  2010,   he made  an  

enquiry  about  his  application  form  as  he  had  not  received  the  

1

acknowledgment  card  from the  appellants.   As  stated  in  the  aforestated  

clause no.7,  as a prudent  candidate,  the respondent ought to have made  

enquiry latest by the end of February, 2010, but for the reasons best known  

to the respondent,   he waited upto 20th  April,  2010 to make an enquiry  

whether his application form was received by the opponents.  In our opinion,  

no  vigilant  student  aspiring  to  become a  responsible  officer  of  the  State  

would remain so indifferent so as not to make any enquiry for more than two  

months.  It is also pertinent to note that the respondent was not taking the  

examination  for  the  first  time.   According  to  him,   he  had  taken   the  

examination earlier also but unfortunately he was not successful.  Thus, he  

was having experience about the way in which the application form is filled  

up,  how that is to be submitted and the way in which acknowledgement  

card is sent by the appellants.  In our opinion, this negligence on his part has  

resulted  into  his  sufferance  and he  himself  is  only to  be blamed for  the  

events.   

26. For  the  aforestated  reasons,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  

appellants cannot be directed to declare the final result of the respondent,  

especially when his application form had not been received by the appellants  

within the period prescribed.   We ignore the second application form which  

was submitted by him in pursuance of the direction given by the Tribunal.

1

27. We may add here that this Court has observed time and again  

that an interim order should not be of such a nature that by virtue of which a  

petition or an application, as the case may be, is finally allowed or granted  

even at an interim stage.   We reiterate that normally  at  an interlocutory  

stage no such relief should be granted that by virtue of which the final relief,  

which  is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is granted.  

We, however, find that very often courts are becoming more sympathetic to  

the  students  and  by  interim orders  authorities  are  directed  to  permit  the  

students to take an examination without ascertaining whether the concerned  

candidate had a right to  take the examination.  For any special reason in an  

exceptional case, if such a direction is given, the court must dispose of the  

case finally on merits before declaration of the result.  In the instant case, we  

have found that the respondent not only took the preliminary examination  

but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by  

virtue  of  interim  orders  though  he  had  no  right  to  take  any  of  the  

examinations.   In  our  opinion,  grant  of  such  interim  orders   should  be  

avoided as they not only increase work of the institution which conducts  

examination  but  also  give  false  hope  to  the  candidates  approaching   the  

court.

1

28. For the reasons stated hereinabove,   we allow the appeal  by  

quashing and setting aside the judgment delivered by the High Court as well  

as the order of the Tribunal with no order as to costs.  The Interlocutory  

Application filed by the respondent is also rejected.      

………..……………......................J.                                                   (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

                            ……

…...........................................J.                                                                (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi August 5,  2011.  

1