1996(8) Supreme 185
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
Mhathung Kithan & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12310 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13705 of 1995)
With
Civil Appeal No. 12325 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21429 of 1993)
Decided on 18-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.N. Shukla, Sr. (Ms. Shashi Kiran) Advocate for Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate, C.V.S. Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 12310/96 : Pankaj Kalra and B.K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 12325/96 : Rajeev K. Singh, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.- Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
Civil Appeal No. 12310/96 (@ SLP (C) No. 13705/95)
2. 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 Aministrative 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.
3. 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 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".
4. Rule 5 was construed by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Ors.1 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 State. 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.
5. 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 66.2/3% 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.
[Italics ours]
6. 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.
7. The first respondent has contended that in the batch passing the examination in 1984, when the vacancy was for an insider, no insider was available and the vacancy had been occupied by an outsider. 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 n
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.