Union of India Vs. Mhathung Kithan & Ors  INSC 1156 (18 September 1996)
Sujata V. (J) Manohar Sujata V. (J) Ahmadi A.M. (Cj)
the Chief Justice Hon`ble M.S. Justice Sujata V.Manohar V.R.Reddy, Additional
Solicitor General, K.N.Shukla, Sr. (Ms. Shashi Kiran) Adv, for Ms.Anil Katiyar,
Adv. C.V.S,Rao, Advs. with them for the Appellant Pankaj Kalra and B.K.Sharma,
Advs. for the Respondent in C.A.No. 12310/96 Rajeev K.Singh, Adv. for the
Respondent in C.A.No.12325/96
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
granted in both the special leave petitions.
Appeal No. 12310/96 (@ SLP(C) No.13705/95) Respondent No.1 appeared in the
Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in
the year 1985. He was selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative
Service in the 1986 batch. The home State of respondent No.1 is Nagaland and he
gave his preference for allocation to his home State cadre. There were two
seats which were available for allocation to Nagaland. Both these seats were
earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point roster. Hence the first respondent
was allocated to the State of Haryana. He
challenged this allocation by filing an application before the Chandigarh Bench
of the Central Administative Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the application
and directed the appellant-Union of India to consider the transfer of respondent No.1 from the Haryana cadre to
the Nagaland cadre in the manner set out in the order. The present appeal is
from the order of the Tribunal.
Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules it is provided as follows:- "5. Allocation of
members to various cadres 5(1): The allocation of cadre officers to the various
cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State
Government or the State Governments concerned.
The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Governments
concerned transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre".
was construed by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav,
IAS and Ors. (1994 6 SCC 38). It has held that a selected candidate has a right
to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such right to be
allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home Stats. Allotment of cadre is
an incidence of service; and a member of an All-India service bears liability
to serve in any part of India. Respondent No.1, therefore, had no
right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice.
a policy decision conveyed by the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel &
Training to the Chief Secretaries of all States by a letter dated 30th July,
1984, it was decided that for various reasons set out therein, in order to have
a proper balance in the State cadre, the "outsider" element in the
direct recruitment quota was raised to 66.2% or in the ratio 2:1 as between
outsiders and insiders in place of 1:1. The letter states:- "It is
proposed to give effect to this decision by ensuring henceforth at the time of
allocating candidates appointed to I.A.S. and I.P.S. on the basis of Civil
Service Examination, that at least 66.2/3% of the officers are from outside the
State concerned." [underlining ours] In the light of this policy a
continuous 30 point roster was provided starting from the examination held in
1983. The roster follows the cycle, "outsider, insider, outsider,
outsider, insider, outsider........". In any given year the roster starts
with the point where the roster ended in the previous year. In the case of the
State cadre for the State of Nagaland there were two vacancies for allocation
to the batch which had Passed the examination in the year 1985.
the 30 point roster, both these vacancies were for outsiders. Hence the first
respondent, who belonged to the State of Nagaland, being an
"insider", was not eligible for either of the two vacancies. He was,
therefore, allotted to the State of Haryana.
first respondent has contended that in the batch passing the examination in
1984, when the vancancy was for an insider, no insider was available and the
vacancy had been occupied by an outisder. Hence he should be considered for one
of the roster points available for the batch of 1985. We have, however, not
been shown any rule which provides for a carry-over of "insider"
vacancies if they are not filled due to non-availability of insider candidates.
In the absence of any such rule for carry-forward of insider vacancies, we do
not see how the first respondent can be accommodated in the vacancies which are
earmarked for outsiders as per the relevant roster points.
policy statement of 30th July, 1984, a reference was made to the fact that
State service officers who get promoted to I.A.S./I.P.S. are in the age group
of 40 to 50 and at that late stage, their transfer to another State cadre may
give rise to personnel and administrative problems of adjustment. Therefore, in
order to restore the outsider- insider balance in a State cadre, it was
proposed that the outsider element in the direct recruitment quota required to
be increased. In this context it is difficult to accept the contention of the
first respondent regarding carry-forward of "insider" vacancies. The
roster is framed bearing in mind this requirement of increasing outsiders in
the quota of Direct Recruits. The policy requires that at least 66.2% of the
officers who are directly recruited are from outside the State concerned. It
does not impose a ceiling of 66.2/3%.
Tribunal was, therefore, not right in disturbing the implementation of this
policy as per the roster.
appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The order of the Tribunal is set
aside and the application of the first respondent is dismissed.
view of the above decision, Civil Appeal No.12325/96 (@ SLP(C) No.21429/93) is
also allowed with costs since the facts are similar to the facts in the above