Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5546/2011
Date of Decision: August 4, 2011 Sonali Giri ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate.
Through
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
04.08.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The petitioner Sonali Giri is an IAS probationer and had secured
42nd rank in Civil Services Examination, 2009. Her grievance is that she has been allotted Gujarat cadre instead of Haryana cadre, which was her second preference. She challenged the Cadre Allocation Policy dated 21st February, 2008 in OA No. 2782/2010 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) on the ground that she is an OBC candidate and even if she has
2011:DHC:3950-DB qualified as an unreserved candidate, she should be allocated Haryana
Cadre as an outsider OBC. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner has been treated as a general candidate and, therefore, not eligible and entitled to allocation as an OBC category candidate has been accepted by the Tribunal in the impugned decision dated 2nd June, 2011.
ORDER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Cadre Allocation Policy is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4310- 4311/2010, in which it has been held that a reserved category candidate selected on merit cannot be denied benefit of a better service which she may be entitled to as a reserved category candidate. The following operative portion of the judgment has been quoted by the Tribunal in the impugned order and reads:- “i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by RC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to general category candidates. ii) By operation of Rule 16(2), the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/her better performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. iii) The amended Rule 16(2) only seeks to recognize the inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. a) meritorious reserved category candidates b) relatively lower ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of allocation to the various Civil Services with due regard for the preferences indicated by them. iv) The reserved category candidates “belonging to OBC, SC/ST categories” who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16(2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16(1) or Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution.” The term MRC in the above quoted portion stands for candidates selected on merit.
3. Rules 6 and 9 of the Cadre Allocation Rules, 2008, read as under:-
4. It may be noted that Rule 9 was amended subsequently by O.M. dated 21st April, 2011 and the said amended rule cannot be made applicable to the selection made in 2009. The amended rule is not retrospective.
5. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly held and observed that the aforesaid Rules do not run counter to the judgment and direction given by the Supreme Court in Ram Ramesh’s case (supra). The judgment of the Supreme Court dealt with entirely a different aspect i.e. whether a reserved category candidate who qualifies the Civil Service examination on merits as a general category candidate can be denied service of her choice. It has been held that a reserved category candidate who is otherwise selected on merit in general list, cannot be denied service of her choice which she will be entitled to if she is selected as a reserved category candidate. A candidate when she belongs to reserved category, is entitled to a service of her choice and cannot be denied right to choose a service merely because she has performed well and has been otherwise selected on merits in the general category. This would deprive and deny her a service which she wants to adopt and work in. This is what was directed by the Supreme Court in the directions given above. The choice of State cadre is a different aspect and has to be made in terms of the Cadre Allocation Policy applicable at a given point of time. Selection and choice of service has a different connotation. The petitioner has been selected and appointed as a general category candidate and accordingly allocated the State of Gujarat as per the Cadre Allocation Rules, 2008. Rules 6 and 9 quoted above, cannot be categorized as arbitrary or discriminatory in nature.
6. It may be noticed here that the petitioner had alleged that one Mr. Pankaj with 83rd all India rank and also an OBC has been allocated Haryana cadre and she could be allocated the Haryana cadre in his place. However, she had not made him a party to the original application and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the said Mr. Pankaj should have been made a party and the allocation of cadre to the said person should have been challenged. Subsequent attempt by the petitioner to implead him after lapse of more than one year, when both the candidates had settled in their respective cadres, was rightly not permitted.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.