18 September 1996
Supreme Court
Download

U O I Vs MHATHUNG KITHAN

Bench: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
Case number: C.A. No.-012310-012310 / 1996
Diary number: 8327 / 1995
Advocates: ANIL KATIYAR Vs


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MHATHUNG KITHAN & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/09/1996

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present;                  Hon‘ble 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                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:      Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J.      Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.      Civil 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.      Under 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

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    cadres shall be made by the Central      Government in consultation with the      State  Government   or  the   State      Governments concerned.      5(2) -  The Central Government may,      with the  concurrence of  the State      Governments  concerned  transfer  a      cadre officer  from  one  cadre  to      another cadre".      Rule 5 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.      Under 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. As per  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.      The 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.      In the 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

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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%. The Tribunal  was, therefore,  not right  in disturbing  the implementation of this policy as per the roster.      The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The order of the  Tribunal is  set aside  and the  application of  the first respondent is dismissed.      In  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 Civil Appeal.