Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned allocation of an Indian Administrative Service officer to a state cadre. The first respondent appeared in the Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in 1985 and was selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1986 batch. His home state was Nagaland and he gave preference for allocation to his home state cadre. Two seats were available for Nagaland, but both were earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point roster. Consequently, he was allocated to the State of Haryana. He challenged this allocation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Union of India to consider transfer of respondent No.1 from Haryana cadre to Nagaland cadre in the manner set out in the order. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against this order. The legal questions before the Court were whether a selected candidate for the Indian Administrative Service has a right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or home state, whether unfilled insider vacancies under the 30-point roster can be carried forward to subsequent years, and whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the policy implementation. The appellant Union of India relied on Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules and a policy decision dated 30 July 1984 conveyed by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training. That policy, for maintaining a proper balance in state cadres, raised the outsider element in the direct recruitment quota to 66 2/3% or in the ratio 2:1 between outsiders and insiders. A continuous 30 point roster was provided starting from the 1983 examination, following the cycle outsider, insider, outsider, outsider, insider, outsider. In the 1985 batch, both vacancies for Nagaland were earmarked for outsiders. The respondent contended that in the 1984 batch an insider vacancy was filled by an outsider due to non-availability of an insider, and that insider vacancy should be carried forward to 1985. The Court held that a selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but no right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or home state, relying on Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 38. It further held that no rule provided for carry-over of insider vacancies if not filled due to non-availability of insider candidates. The policy required at least 66 2/3% of directly recruited officers from outside the state but did not impose a ceiling. The Tribunal was therefore not right in disturbing the implementation of this policy as per the roster. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with costs, the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the application of the first respondent was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 12325 of 1996, involving similar facts, was also allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Allocation of Cadre to All India Service Officers - Rule 5 of Cadre Rules - Right to appointment does not include right to home cadre - Selected candidate for IAS has right to be considered for appointment but no right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or home State; allotment of cadre is an incidence of service and member of All India Service bears liability to serve anywhere in India - Held that respondent No.1 had no right to be allocated to Nagaland cadre (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Cadre Allocation Policy - Department of Personnel & Training letter dated 30 July 1984 and 30 point roster - Outsider-insider ratio in direct recruitment raised to 66 2/3% (2:1) to maintain balance; roster earmarks vacancies as outsider or insider - Held that no rule provided carry-over of unfilled insider vacancies; first respondent, an insider from Nagaland, not eligible for two outsider vacancies in 1985 batch; contention of carry-forward rejected (Paras 4-6). C) Service Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Policy - Implementation of roster - Tribunal erred in disturbing implementation of policy; policy requires at least 66 2/3% officers from outside state, does not impose ceiling, and no carry-forward rule existed - Held appeals allowed, orders of Tribunal set aside, and applications dismissed with costs (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a selected candidate for Indian Administrative Service has a right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or home State; whether unfilled insider vacancies under the 30-point roster can be carried forward to subsequent years; whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing transfer to home cadre.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed with costs. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside and the application of the first respondent was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 12325 of 1996 was also allowed with costs as facts were similar.
Law Points
- Selected candidate for IAS has right to be considered for appointment but no right to allocation to home State
- allotment of cadre is incidence of service
- member of All India Service bears liability to serve anywhere in India
- policy dated 30 July 1984 raised outsider element to at least 66 2/3%
- 30 point roster valid
- no carry-forward of insider vacancies absent rule
- Tribunal should not disturb policy implementation.
