Holding

The restriction on horizontal mobility of Group ‘A’ service candidates under the proviso to Rule 17, 1990 is reasonable, non‑arbitrary and does not violate Article 14, and is therefore constitutionally valid.

Summary

The appellants, originally allocated to various Group ‘A’ central services in 1989, abstained from training to appear for the 1990 Civil Services (Main) Examination in hopes of securing a more desirable posting. Their improved performance was ignored, and they were denied allocation to Indian Customs/Central Excise Services because the first proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1990 restricted mobility to only IAS, IFS and IPS. The petitioners challenged this restriction as violative of Article 14, alleging discrimination between IPS candidates and other Group ‘A’ candidates. The Court examined whether the restriction was reasonable, non‑arbitrary and whether it created unlawful discrimination. Relying on the rationale that all Group ‘A’ services stand on an equal footing and that allowing unrestricted horizontal movement would leave many posts vacant and disrupt administration, the Court held the restriction justified and not violative of equality. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of the proviso to Rule 17, 1990 restricting horizontal mobility of Group ‘A’ service candidates.
Whether the restriction amounts to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the restriction is reasonable, non‑arbitrary and necessary for administrative efficiency.

Subjects

Civil Services Examination RulesRule 17Group A servicesmobility restrictionArticle 14equalitydiscriminationadministrative efficiencyconstitutional validity

Judgment

ARTI K. CHHABRA AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 11, 1992

[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

Civil Services-Civil Services Examination Rules, 199o-Rule 17,
Proviso-<:onstitutional validity of-Candidates selected to JPS, /AS, IFS and
other Central Services in Group '.A '-Mobility to other Services--R.estric-
tion--Wliether discriminatory.
c
The appellants were allocated to Iqdian Ordnance Factory Servic~,
Indian Defence Accounts Services, and Indian Postal Services respectively
(Group 'A' Services) on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 1989. They
did not join the foundation course and probationary training of the said
Services and with due permission abstained from training thereafter, to D
improve their position by appearing in the Civil Services· (Main) Examina-
tion, 1990. Though they improved their position in 1990 Examination, they
were denied their allocation and appointment to Indian Customs/Central
Excise Services in Group' A' by making application of the first proviso to rule
17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1990.
E
In the present appeal by special leave, the appellants challenged the
validity of the proviso to rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules,
1990 for competitive examination held by the Union Public Service Com-
mission in 1990 for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in various
Central Civil Services.
F
Appellants contended that whereas a candidate who on the basis of
his previous examination was selected to I.P.S. could move to I.A.S. and
1.F.S. and any of the Central Services in Group 'A', those who were
selected for any of the services in Group 'A' like the appellants could n9t
move to any other service in the same Group but could only move to I.A.S., G
I.F.S. and I.P.S. that such restriction on the mobility of those who were
selected to the services in Group 'A' as against those who were selected for
l.P.S., was discriminatory, and was bad in law.

The respondents submitted that there was no absolute bar on those
who were selected for any of the Group 'A' Services on the basis of their H
511
. .
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992J'SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A previous examination, from moving to other service in the said Group; that
the only condition was that if they choose to do so, they had to resign first
from the service; that the restriction was applicable only if the candidate
concerned wanted to retain the advantage of opting for a service so allocated,
in case he failed in the next examination; that the second *oviso to rule 17
enabled a candidate appointed to Group 'B'; Services on: the basis of the
B earlier examination to get appointment only in l.A.S., 1.F.S. and I.P.S. and
Group 'A' Services thus permitting only the vertical movement and not
horizontal movement in the same Group, i.e . Group ~B'; that if movement
from one Group 'A' Service to another- Group 'A' Service was allowed,
vacancies in a large number of services would remain un(illed; that there
C would also arise a problem of fixing seniority between th~ promotees and
direct recruits; that there would be a shortage of suitable officers at the
higher level adversely affecting the efficiency of administration; that the
movement of candidates from 1.P.S. to Group' A' Services and vice versa were
permitted from the inception of the examination Scheme; that they were two
entirely different categories of services and. hence allowin~ tl:.e mobility to
D I.P.S. category was justified. 1

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The restriction is eminently justified since, all Services in
Group 'A' Stand at per with each other. Hence, there is no question of
E bettering prospects or seeking an upward mobilitywhen a c~ndidate wants to
move from one service in Group 'A' to another service' in that Group.
Further, if those who are appointed to any of the Group' A' Services which are
as many as 45, are allowed the mobility, a large number of posts would
remain unfilled at any particular point of time resulting in a chaos in the
administration. (521-C]
F
'
1.2. The posts .in l.A.S., I.F.S. and I.P.S. are li~ited in number
compared to those in Group 'A' services and those selected for the I.A.S.,
l.F.S. and I.P.S. are few. The dislocation on that account is thus marginal,
if any. (521-D] '
G 1.3. There is no absolute restriction on a candidate selected to any
of the services in Group 'A' from moving to any other se7ice in the same
Group. The only condition is that if he does so, he has to resign from that
Service before he appears in the next examination. For these reasons, the
restriction placed on the said mobility cannot be said to be either un-
H reasonable or arbitrary. (521-E)
AK. CHHABRA v. U.O.I. 513

1.4. According to the Examination Scheme in force prior to 1979 a A
candidate who opted for I.A.S./l.F.S. was required to appear in two addition-
al optional subjects of Master's Degree standard in addition to three option-
al subjects and the compulsory subjects of General English, Essay and
General Knowledge. The candidates opting for Central Services (Category
Ill) were not required to appear only in the additional optional subjects; they
were required to appear only in the three optional subjects in addition to the B
compulsory subjects. (522-A]

1.5. The candidates competing for the I.P.S. were required to appear
in two optional subjects only in addition to the compulsory subjects. Apart
from the two additional subjects, higher marks were prescribed in the C
viva-voce examination for candidates competing for l.A.S. and I.F.S. '
[522-C]

1.6. The maximum marks prescribed for candidates competing for
I.A.S. and I.F.S. were 400 where as the maximum marks forviva-voce in the
case of candidates competing for othe~ services were only 300. There wa~ a D
single unified examination for recruitment to different services.
[522-CJ

1.7. In the case of candidates allocated to the I.P.S., they were and are
allotted to particular States and they have to spend their entire career in the E
State to which they are allotted except when they are- on deputation to the
Government oflndia. [522-D]

1.8. It is also possible that the I.P.S. candidate may not like the
State-cadre which is allotted to him in which case, unless he is provided
with the mobility as is done by the proviso to rule 17, he would remain :F
vegetating. That would affect the efficiency of administration. [522-F)

1.9. As far as other Services are concerned including Industrial
Security Force and Railway Protection Force, being Central Services, the
candidates appointed to them get transferred/posted anywhere in the G
country. [522-E]

1.10. The I.P.S. has very little in common with the other services and
they stand on different footing. It is for this reason that he is not given
upward mobility but also mobility towards the less favoured services when
he can opt for the Category Ill Service which compared to I.A.S., I.F.S. H

_J
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP .. 3 S.C.R.

A and I.P.S. is .certainly less prized. [522-G]
1.11. It is, therefore, felt necessary to give an option to those who are
selected for I.P.S. to consider the conditions in the State to which they are
allocated, and not only to move upward but also to any Service in Group
'A' and have an opportunity to be a member of a Central Service, if .so
B desired. [522-El

1.12. There is no discrimination in favour of the tandidates who are
selected to I.P.S. cadre. The classification made has a rational nexus with
the object sought to be achieved, viz., the efficieilcy of administration.
c ~~·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5300 of ...
19'J2. I

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.1992, of the Central Ad-
D tninistrative Tribunal, Principal :aench, New Delhi i~ C.A. No. 2736 of
1991.

A.S. Pundir for the Appellants.
'
T.C. Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment to the Court was delivered by ,

SAWANT, J. Special leave granted. l-
'
The appellants challenge the validity of the proviso to rule 17 of the
F Civil. Services Examination Rules, 1990 ['1990 Rule~'] for competitive ex-
amination held by the· Union Public Service Commission in 19'JO for the
purpose of filling up the vacancies in various Centr~l Civil Services. Rule
17 reads as follows:

"17. Due consideration will be given a~ the time of
G making appointments on the results of the exam.fuation to
the preferences expressed by a candidate f6r various ser-
vices at the time of his application. The appointment of
various services will also be governed by the Rules/

H
Regulations· in force as applicable to the respective Ser-
. vices at the time of appointment:
-
'-
AK. CHHABRA v. U.O.I. [SAWANT, J.J 515

Provided that a candidate who has been approved for A
appointment to Indian Police Service/Central Service,
Group 'A' mentioned in coloumn 2 below on the results
of an earlier examination will be considered only for
appointment in services mentioned against that service in
coloumn 3 below on thr. results of this examination.
B

SI Service of which approved Service of which eligible to
No. for am~ointment comQete
1 2 3
1. Indian Police Service I.A.S., l.F.S., and Central c
Services, Group 'A'
2. Central Services I.AS. 2 I.F.S. 2 and 1.P.S.

Provided further that a candidate who is appointed to
a Central Service, Group 'B' on the results of an earlier D
examination will be considered only for appointment to
I.AS., l.F.S., I.P.S., and Central Services Group 'A'."

2. The Central Services Group 'A' consists of as many as 45 services
including Indian Revenue Service which comprises, among others, Customs
E
Branch (Indian Customs Service, Group 'A') and Central Excise Branch
(Central Excise Service, Group 'A'). Similarly, Group 'B' Services consist
of a number of services. But with them, we are not concerned in this '
appeal. The result of the aforesaid rule is that a candidate who has been
approved for appointment to Indian Police Service can for bettering his
prospects, appear in the next examination and on the basis of his perfor- F
mance can be considered for appointment either in I.AS. or l.F.S. or to .
any of the Central Services Group 'A'. Similarly, if he has been approved
for appointment to any of the Group 'A' Services, he can for bettering his
prospects appear in the next examination and on the basis of his perfor-
mance in th.at examination, can be considered for appointment in I.AS. or G
I.F.S. or I.P.S. but not for appointment in any other Group 'A' Services.
There is a similar restriction on the horizontal movement in Group 'B'
Services. ·

The I.AS., I.F.S. and I.P.S. form three distinct Services. There was
a time when among the three, I.F.S. was considered the most prized service, H

1-
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A l.A.S. being the next favoured service. It appears that during recent years,
the scales have changed in favour of l.A.S. which is given priority by most
of the candidates. The I.P.S. stands by itself, and though may not· be
considered as covetous as IA.S. and I.F.S., is prized for itself and has little
in common with other Services. This rule, therefore, virtually provided an
B upward mobility for those appointed to I.P .S. and Central Services Group
'A', 1.P:s. being considered in many respects next only to l.A.S. and I.F.S.
Howev~r, iri one respect, the rule permitted either downward or horizontal
movement inasmuch as those selected for appointment to l.P.S. could also
move to Group 'A' Services by qualifying themselves in the next examina-
tion. However, the horizontal movement among the Group 'A' Services was
C not permitted and the candidate who was approved for appointn,i~nt to an.y
of the Group 'A' Services could not on the basis of the results of the next
examination opt for any other service in that Group. If he wanted to do so
he could do it only by resigning from the Group 'A' Service for which he
was approved on the basis of liis earlier examination and then take the next
D examination for competing for. the other services in that Group. This was
on account of the second proviso to rule 4 of the said rules which read as
under:

"4. Every candidate appearing at the examination, who is
otherwise eligible, shall be permitted three attempts at the
E examination, irrespective of the null!ber of attempts he has
already availed of at the IAS etc." Examination held in
previous year. The restriction shall be effective from the
Civil Services Exam_ination held in 1979. Any attempts
made at the Civil Services [Preliminary] Examination held
in 1979 and onwards will count as attempts for this purpose:
F
.~
Provided that this restriction on the number of attempts
will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible:

G Provided further that a candidate who on the basis of the
results of the previous Civil Examination, had been allo-
cated to the IPS or Central Services, Group 'A' but who
expressed his intention to appear in the next Civil Services,
[Main] Examination for competing for IAS, IFS, IPS or
H Central Services, Gro~p 'A' and who was permitted to
...
A.K. CHHABRA v. U.0.1. [SAWANT, J.] 517
• abstain from the probationary training in order to so ap- A
pear, shall be eligible to d.o so, subject to the provisions of
Rule 17. If the candidate is allocated to a service on the
basis of the next Civil Services [Main] Examination he shall
join either that Service or the Service to which -he was
allocated on the basis of the previous Civil Services Ex-
amination failing which his allocation to the service based B
on one or both examination, as the case may be, shall stand
cancelled and notwithstanding anything contained in Rule
8, a candidate who accepts allocation to a service and is
appointe<;l to a service shall not be eligible to appear again
in the Civil Services Examination unless he has first c
resigned from the Service.

Note: (1] An attempt at a preliminary examination shall
be deemed to be an attempt at the examination.

(2] If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in D
the preliminary examination he shall be deemed to have
made an attempt at the examination.

(3] Notwithstanding the disqualification/cancellation of
candidature the fact of appearance of the candidate at the
examination will count as an attempt". E
Rule 8 of the Rules read as follows:-

"8. A candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administra-
tive Service or the Indian Foreign Service on results of an
earlier examination before the commencement of this ex- F
amination and continues to be a member of that service
will not be eligible to compete at this examination.

In case a candidate has been appointed toJhe IAS/IFS after
the preliminary examination of this examination but before
G
the main examination of this examination and he/she shall
also not be eligible to appear in the main examination of
this examination notwithstanding that he/she has qualified
in the preliminary examination.

Also provided that if a candidate is appointed to IAS/IFS H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A after the commencement of the main examination but
before the result thereof and continues to be a member of
that Service, he/she shall not be considered for appoint-
ment to ariy service/post on the basis of the results of this
examination".
0

B 3. The appellants were allocated to Indian Ordnance Factory Ser-
vices, Indian Defence Accounts Services, and Indian Postal Services
respectively [which are Group 'A' Services] on the basis of Civil Services
Examination, 1989. However, they did not join the foundation course and
probationary training of the said Services and with due. permission
C abstained from training thereafter, to impn;we their position by appearing
in the Ciyil Services [Main] Examination, 1990. It is their grievance that
although they improved their position ill 1990 Examination, they have been
denied their allocation and appointment to Indian Customs/Central Excise
Serv.ices in Group 'A' by making wrong application of the first proviso to
D .rule 17 of the 1990 Rules. Their contention is that notwithstanding the fact
that the first proviso does not in terms permit mobility from one Central
Service in Group 'A' to ·another Central Service in that Group, such
mobility must be read into the same. It is urged that unless such mobility
is read in the rule, the proviso becomes unreasonable and a!,"bitrary and
offends Article 14 of the Constitution. In this connection, they particularly
E point out the anomaly that whereas a candidate who on the basis of his
previous examination is selected to I.P.S., can move to I.AS. and I.F.S. and
any of the' Central Services in Group 'A', those who have been selected for
any of the services in Group 'A' like the appellants cannot move to any
other service in the same Group but can only move to I.AS., I.F.S. and
I.P.S. According to the appellants, this restriction on the mobility of those
F
who are selected to the services in Group 'A' as against those who are
selected for I.P.S., is discriminatory, and on that count also. the rule is bad
in law.

4. This contention is resisted on behalf of the respondents. It is
G pointed out on their behalf that in the first instance there is no absolute
bar on those who are selected for any of the Group 'A' Services on the
basis of their previous examination, from moving to other service in the
said Group. The only condition is that if they choose to do so, they have
first to resign from the service. The restriction is applicable only if the
H candidate concerned wants to retain the advantage of opting for a service
AK. CHHABRA v. U.0.1. (SAWANT, .J.] 519

so allocated, in case he fails in the next examination. It is contended on A
their behalf that eversince 1947, when for the first time the examination for
l.A.S. was held, a candidate allocated to a service in Group 'A' was never
given the option of allocation to another service within the said Group on
the basis of the succeeding examination. This practice continued till the
framing of the rules in the year 1964, the present Group 'A' Services being B
then known as Class I Services. However, rule 3 of the I.AS. Examination
Rules for 1964 'Specifically provided that "a candidate who has already been
appointed to a permanent post in a Class-I service on the results of earlier
Indian Administrative Service examination will not be considered for allot-
ment to another Class-I Service on the selection in a later examination".
To the same effect were the rules framed in the year 1987. Rule 17 of the c
1987 Rules provided for movement or mobility from one service to another
as provided in the present impugned rul7 17 of the 1990 Rules. The Kothari
Committee had in fact recommended that it was not desirable to permit a
candidate who has been appointed to a service to appear once again for
the examination while undergoing training or even thereafter, without D
resigning from the service to which he is already allocated. The 1987 Rules,
therefore, provided that if a 'person is to appear for an examination without
resigning from the Service, he could do so by having his training suspended
by expressing his intention to appear in the next examination soon after the
allocation to the Service. Except the said change made in 1987, the consis- E
tent position under the examination rules has been that a candidate allo-
cated to a Service in Group 'A' [earlier Class-I] was never permitted to
seek allotment to another Service within the said Group on the basis of his
performance in the next examination. It is further pointed out by them that
the second proviso to rule 17 enables a candidate appointed to Group 'B'
F
Services on the basis of the earlier examination to get appointment only in
l.A.S, 1.F.S. and l.P.S. and Group 'A' Services thus permitting only the
vertical movement and not horizontal movement in the same Group, i.e.,
Group 'B'. The rule is made on the assumption that all Central Services in
Groups 'A' and 'B' stand on equal footing and there is no point in
permitting changes from one Service to another within the same Group. G
According to the respondents, one of the important considerations in
imposing the restriction on horizontal movement in the same Group is to
prevent the chaotic condition that may otherwise prevail in various services.
The merit list published by the UPSC on the basis of a particular year's
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A examination will ordinarily contain a large number of candidates allotted
to different services on the basis of-the examination. Out of them only a
few candidates would be eligible for I.A.S., LF.S. and I.P.S. whereas all the
rest comprising majority would have been allocated to the different services
in Group 'A'. If movement from one Group 'A' Service to another Group
'A' Service is allowed, vacancies in a large number of services will remain
B
unfilled. If this situation persists, the cadre management in those Services
will become difficult Further, if this is experienced from year to year, there
would also arise a problem of fixing seniority between the promotees and
direct recruits. Those appointed by promotion will be in a higher age-
group, and by the ti.me they reach the middle level, they will get eliminated.
c Thus, there will be a shortage of suitable officers at the higher level
adversely affecting the efficiency of administration.

5. The respondents also defend·the favoured treatment given to I.P.S.
in this behalf, by pointing out that the movement of candidates from I.P.S.
D to Group 'A' Services and vice versa has been permitted from the inception
of the Examination Scheme. They are two entirely different categories of
Services and hence allowing the mobility is justified.

6. In support of t!ie validity of rule 17 of the 1990 Rules, the
E respondents depend upon a decision of this Court in Mohan Kumar
. Singliania & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 594, where
the challenge was to the restriction imposed on candidates appointed to
Group 'A' Services from moving to another Service in the same Group.
The challenge in this case was to the second proviso to rule 4 which
requires that if the candidate is allocated to a service on the basis of the
F next examination, he has to join either that service or the service to which
he is allocated on the basis of his earlier examination failing which his
allocation to the service based on one or both examinations would. sland
'
cancelled. The proviso also states that a candidate who accepts allocation (
I
to a service and is appointed to the service shall not be eligible to appear I
G again in the Civil Services Examination unless he first resigns from the 1
same notwithstanding anything contained in rule 8 of the said rules.

7. The attack against the second proviso to rule 17 of the 1990 Rules
is based, as we have pointed out above, on two grounds. The first is that
H the restriction on the horizontal mobility from one service of Group 'A' to

( (_
AK. CHHABRA v. U.O.I. [SAWANT, J.] 521

another service in the said Group, by itself is unreasonable and arbitrary. A
Secondly, while it permits those who are selected for l.P .S. to move to any·
Service in Group ·'A', those who are selected in any Service in Group 'A'
are prevented from doing so. Hence, there is a discrimination between the
candidates selected for l.P.S. and those selected for any of the Group 'A'
Services.
B
8. We are not impressed by either of the said contentions. As regards
the first contention, the restriction is eminently justified since, as has been
pointed out on behalf of the respondents, all Services in Group 'A' stand
at par with each other. Hence, there is no question of bettering prospects
or seeking an upward mobility when a candidate wants to mqve from one c
service in Group 'A' to another service in that Group. Further, if those who
are appointed to any of the Group 'A' Services which are as many as 45,
are allowed the mobility, a large number of posts would remain unfilled at
any particµlar point of time resulting in a chaos in the adininistration. The
contention that this will be the case even when the candidates_ appear for D
the next examination for upward mobility loses sight of the fact that the
posts in l.A.S., I.F.S. and l.P.S. are limited in number compared to those
in Group 'A' services and those selected for the I.AS., I.F.S~ and I.P.S. are
few. The dislocation on that account is thus marginal if any. What is more,
there is no absolute restriction on a candidate selected to any of the E 1

services in Group 'A' from moving to any other service in the same Group.
The only condition is that if he does so, he has to resign from that Service
before he appears in the next examination. For these reasons, we are of
the view that the restriction placed on the said mobility cannot be said to
be either unreasonable or arbitrary.
F
9. As regards the discrimination between the candidates appointed
to 1.P.S. and those appointed to any of the Group 'A' Services, it must be
remembered that from the very inception the Services were classified into
following three categories:
G

- Category I

Category II

Category III
-
l.A.S. and I.F.S.

1.P .S. and Class TT Police Services

- Central Civil Services, Class I and

- Class II [now Group 'A' & 'B'] H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A According to the Examination Scheme in force prior to 1979, a
candidate who opted for I.AS./I.F.S. was required to appear in two addi-
tional optional subjects of Master's Degree standard in addition to thr~
optional subjects a~d the compulsory subjects of General English, Essay
and General Knowledge. The candidates opting for Central Services
(Category III above] were not required to appear in the additional optional
·B
subjects; they were required to appear only in three optional subjects in
addition to the compulsory subjects. The candidates competing for the
I.P.S. were required to appear in two optional subjects only in addition to
the compulsory subjects. Apart from the two additional subjects, higher
marks were prescribed in the viva-voce examination for candidates com-
C peting for IA.S. and I.F.S. The maximum marks prescribed for candidates
c(:')mpeting for I.AS._ aiid I.F.S. Were 400 whereas the maximum marks for
viva-voce in the case of candidates competing for other services were only
300. There was a single unified examination for recruitment to different
services. In the case of candidates allocated to the I.P.S., they were and are
D allotted to particular States· and they have to spend their entire career in
the State to which they are allotted except ~hen they are on deputation to
the Government of India. As far as other Services are conc;emed including
Industriltl Security Force and Railway Protection Force, being Central
Services, the candidates appointed to them get transferred/posted
E anywhere in the country. It is, therefore, felt necessary to give an option to
those who are selected for I.P.S. to consider the conditions in the State to
which they are allocated, and not only to. l!lOVe upward but also to any
Service in Group 'A' and have an opportunity to be a member of a Central
Service, if so desired. It is also possible that the I.P.S. candidate may not
F like the State-cadre which is allotted to him in which case, unless he is
provided with the mobility as is done by the proviso to the impugned rule
17, he would remain vegetating. That would affect the efficiency of ad-
ministration. Further, the I.P.S. has very little in common with the other
services and they stand on different footing. It is for this reason that he is ·
not only given upward mobility but also mobility towards the less favoured
G services when he can opt for the Category III service which compared to
I.AS., I.F.S. and l.P.S. is certainly less prized.

We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances of
-
H the case, it cannot be said that there is any discrimination in favour of the
-
A.K. CHHABRA v. U.O.I. (SA WANT, J.] 523

candidates who are selected to I.P.S. cadre. The classification made has a A
rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., the efficiency of
administration.

10. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.

V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.

-