Full Text
Date of Decision: 13.9.2013 WP(C) NO.3189 OF 2012
SANJEEV KUMAR JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Ranjan, Advocate.
Through: Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr.R.N.Singh, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (Open Court)
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10th May, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was successful in the Civil Service Examination (CSE) in the year 2010 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), securing 915th rank. He was selected to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). He approached the Tribunal contending that even though he indicated the relevant place while filling the form as Jharkhand (his home State), he was mistakenly allotted the Chattisgarh State Cadre. 2013:DHC:4651-DB Accordingly, a violation of paragraph 7 (a) and 8 (ii) of the Cadre Allocation Policy, 2008 is alleged.
3. In support of his contention, it was argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner being in unreserved category candidate was entitled to be re-considered in respect of two converted Scheduled Caste (Insider) vacancies in accordance with paragraph 7(a). The method of allocation in respect of insider/vacancies was indicated in paragraph 8.
4. The Tribunal took note of the facts presented before it as well as the decisions on behalf of the parties. The petitioner has relied upon the decision in C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Aninash Mohanty & Ors, (2007) 7 SCC 385 and submitted that even though a public servant has no right to be allocated to a certain cadre, yet the Government or the Executive Court has to treat him in a fair, equitable manner and apply the guidelines in question or in a nondiscriminatory manner.
5. The Central Government had relied upon paragraph 5 of the CAP, 2008 which was applicable at the relevant time. Its contention was that the petitioner was deemed not to have indicated his Cadre since the choice of preference of Jharkhand was not number one but number seven. In addition, it was argued that on an overall consideration of the materials on record and taking into account the petitioner’s ranking, Chattisgarh Cadre was appropriate one to be allocated to him. The Tribunal held as follows:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. Rank Name of Category Home State Cadre Allotted │ │ Candidate Allotted as │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 55 60 Rahul Kumar General Jharkhand Jharkhand Insider │ │ Sinha │ │ 56 74 Astik Kumar General Uttar Jharkhand Outsider │ │ WP(C) No.3189/2012 Page 6 of 11 │ │ 2013:DHC:4651-DB │ │ Pandey Pradesh │ │ 57 77 Rai Mahimapat General Uttar Jharkhand Outsider │ │ Ray Pradesh │ │ 58 125 Chhaviranjan OBC Bihar Jharkhand Outsider │ │ 59 278 Anjaneyulu SC Andhra Jharkhand Outsider │ │ Pradesh │ │ 60 298 Manjunath SC Karnataka Jharkhand Outsider │ │ 61 334 Rajeshwari B SC Karnataka Jharkhand Outsider │ │ 62 390 Waghmare SC Maharashtra Jharkhand Outsider │ │ Prasad Krishna │ │ The above table indicates that all those candidates are higher │ │ than the applicant in the merit list and the allocation has been │ │ done as per the vacancies in different categories notified for the │ │ cadre. We do not find any deviation and the decision of the 1 st │ │ respondent cannot be faulted.” │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
7. Learned counsel stressed upon the fact that the subsequent guidelines were changed to specifically stipulate that where home State was indicated, it had to be given preference in order of priority. In the absence of such stipulation, as indeed CAP 2008 reflected, it could not be said that the indication of Jharkhand as the home State ought to have been ignored in the circumstances of this case. The learned counsel further submitted that a reading of paragraphs 7(a) and 8(ii) leads to only one conclusion – that the petitioner being an insider of Jharkhand was entitled to be accommodated in the default vacancies as no SC/ST or OBC insider candidates for Jharkhand were available, and his name had to be therefore, shifted from Chhattisgarh and allocated against one of the SC vacancies. It was submitted that the Tribunal wrongly understood the purport of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and that the events which occurred after the e initial cadre allocation ought to have been considered to accommodate the Petitioner in Jharkhand.
8. This Court has extracted the basic reasoning of the Tribunal in the impugned order. It is apparent that the Petitioner, an unreserved category candidate showed Jharkhand as his seventh preference for cadre allocation. Therefore, when the Cadre allocation authority had to analyse the options given by various candidates, it had to take into account the several permutations and combinations. Shri Sinha, on the basis of the preference indicated by him, was allocated Jharkhand as his cadre; his ranking was high; it was 60. The Petitioner, on the other hand, was much lower in ranking; he was 915. Shri Sinha’s preference for Jharkhand was, like the petitioner’s, at Serial No. 7. Being higher in rank, he was allocated the insider vacancy for that State. The other UR (unreserved candidate) slots were filled by those who had again ranked higher than the petitioner; likewise, even the reserved insider vacancy and outsider vacancies were filled by those possessing much higher ranking.
9. The Supreme Court, in its various judgments (Rajesh Yadav v. Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 38; Union of India v. Mhathung Kitan & Ors., 1996 (10) SCC 562) has ruled that cadre allocation has to address various issues, such as compliance with the mandatory requirement of ensuring a 2/3-1/3 ratio between outsiders and insiders in cadres for each state; respecting the reservation policies of the Union; and also taking into account the preference of the candidates. As would be apparent the cadre allocation exercise is a complex one. It cannot, and does not base itself on one or two considerations, but on a balance of all the relevant factors. Whilst the expectation and aspiration of a candidate to be allocated the cadre of his choice, it may even be his home state, is one relevant factor, that cannot trump or prevail over the other constitutionally and legally binding considerations of ensuring that reservation policies and the mandate of the rules are respected. This is also the effect of later decisions such as G. Srinivasa Rao v. Union of India (2011 (8) SCC 123).
10. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner’s argument also encompasses a claim that the subsequent change of situation in the Jharkhand cadre has afforded scope to the decision makers to allocate one vacancy, which he claims he can be adjusted to. The Court cannot take these later developments into account, because it can result in a fresh chain of events, the possibilities of which cannot be visualized. The Court’s scope of interference, in cadre allocation exercises, is to ensure that the decision maker does not stray beyond the bounds of the rules of the constitutionally mandated reservation policies and binding guidelines. The inherent dynamism which is implicit in a cadre allocation exercise where the allocation of each candidate itself constitutes a consideration to be taken for the subsequent step, and the balancing act to be performed by the decision maker, cautions against an interventionist judicial review approach.
11. In view of the above reasons, this court is of opinion that no infirmity can be found with the approach or conclusions of the Tribunal in the impugned order. The writ petition has to fail and is consequently dismissed without any order as to costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
(JUDGE) NAJMI WAZIRI, J (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 RN