Union Of India vs Rajiv Yadav, Indian Administrative Service

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(SC) 683

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus
Rajiv Yadav, IAS and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3542 of 1992 with 2184 and 3870 of 1993 with C.A. Nos. 5017, 5014, 5015 and 5016 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10820, 4259, 4360 and 3001 of 1993) with C.A. No. 3543 of 1992 with Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 398 of 1992 with Civil Appeal No. 5018 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12514 of 1993)
Decided on 21-7-1994.
WITH
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus
Anil Kumar, Respondent
WITH
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus
Vinay Kumar and others, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar and others, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus
Savita Vikas Hande (Dharmadhikari) and others, Respondents
WITH
Union of India and others, Appelants
Versus
Shankar Jiwal, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India and anothers, Appelants
Versus
T. Vanudhar Reddy and others, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India and others, Appelants
Versus
Ms. Anju Gupta IPS(S) and others, Respondents
WITH
Miss Supriya Sahu, Petitoner
Versus
Union of India and other, Respondents.
WITH
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Smt. Alka Bhargava, IPS and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. R. Reddy Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Mr. N. N. Goswamy, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Advocates and Mr. H. S. Nigam, Mr. Kamleshwar Sahai Mr. Rachna Gupta, Mr. C. V. S. Rao, Mr. T.C. Sharma, Mr. Hemant Sharma, G. N. Reddy, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Shirin Jain Mr. A K. Behara, Mr. S. M. Garg, Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, Mr. Vimal Dave, Mr. Ejaj Maqbool and Mr. S. M. Garg, Advocates with them, for the Appearing Parties.
* From Judgement and Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2557 of 1990, D/- 19-12-1991
INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CADRE RULES—CANDIDATE HAS NO RIGHT TO BE ALLOCATED TO CADRE OF HIS CHOICE OR TO HIS HOME STATE

Advocates:
A.K.Behera, A.M.SANGHVI, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.PRAKASH REDDY, EJAZ MAQBUL, G.N.REDDY, H.S.NIGAM, HARISH N.SLAVE, HEMANT SHARMA, INDLI MALHOTRA, K.Madhava Reddy, KAMLESHVAR SAHAI, N.N.GOSWAMY, RACHNA GUPTA, S.M.GARG, Shirin Jain, T.C.SHARMA, V.R.REDDY, VIMAL DAVE, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 16(4) - Appointment To IAS - Change Of Cadre - Rajiv Yadav appeared in civil services examination - He belongs to Union Territory, and had opted for "Union Territories" cadre - He was selected for appointment to IAS and in order of merit he was placed at serial number 16 - By order he was allocated to Manipur and Tripura cadre - His representation for change of cadre from Manipur-Tripura to "Union Territories" having been rejected by Central Government, he challenged order allocating him to Manipur – Held, "Roster System" ensures equitable treatment to both general candidates and reserved categories - In compliance with statutory requirement and in terms of Article 16(4) of Constitution of India 221/2% reserved category candidates are recruited to IAS - Having done so both categories are to be justly distributed amongst States - But for "Roster System" it would be difficult rather impossible for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates to be allocated to their home States - Principles of cadre allocation, thus, ensure equitable distribution of reserved candidates amongst all cadres - In view of stand taken by Union of India no relief can be given to petitioner by this Court - Court, however, direct Union of India to consider case of petitioner in accordance with principles of cadre allocation for reserved candidates – Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- The Central Government is the authority under the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre Rules), 1954 [the Cadres Rules] to allocate the members of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) ( directly recruited ( to various State cadres/ Joint cadres under the said Rules. The Central Government has laid down the broad principles of allocation called "the Roster System". The said system was earlier operating from 1966 to 1977. Thereafter till 1984 the allocations were done in accordance with the procedure called "the Limited Zonal Preferences System". Since 1985 batch onwards the Central Government has reverted back to the "Roster system" with some modifications. Reservation to the extent of 15% and 71/2% for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respectively has been provided in direct recruitment to the IAS. The "Roster system" provides that while allocating the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes candidates to their home State (insiders) vacancies shall be reserved for them in various cadres to the extent reservation-percentage has been provided in direct recruitment to the IAS. This reservation in the process of allocation was challenged by Rajiv Yadav, respondent in the appeal herein, before the Central Adminiistrative Tribunal, New Delhi (the tribunal). A Full Bench of the tribunal allowed the application of Rajiv Yadav and held that no reservation can be provided for the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes while allocating the members of IAS to various cadres. This appeal, by the Union of India is against the judgment of the tribunal.

2. Rajiv Yadav appeared in the civil services examination held in 1988. He belongs to the Union Territory of Delhi, and had opted for the "Union Territories" cadre. He was selected for appointment to the IAS and in the order of merit he was placed at serial number 16. By the order dated September 28, 1989 he was allocated to the Manipur and Tripura cadre. His representation for change of cadre from Manipur-Tripura to "Union Territories" having been rejected by the Central Government, he challenged the order allocating him to the Manipur-Tripura cadre before the tribunal.

Rules 3 and 5 of the Cadre Rules, which are relevant are as under:-

"3. Constitution of Cadres - 3(1) There shall be constituted for such State or group of States or Indian Administrative Service Cadre.

3(2) The cadre so constituted for a State or a group of State is hereinafter referred to as a State Cadre or, as the case may be, a Joint Cadre.

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."

There is no material on the record to show that the principles of allocation as provided in the "Roster system" have ever been notified by the Central Government. A demi-official letter dated May 31, 1985 from Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and addressed to Secretary, Department of Forest & Wild Life has, however, been placed on the record which is in the following terms:-

"As you are aware, the allocation of the direct recruits to the All India Services, including the Indian Forest Service is being made in accordance with the "Limited Zonal Preferences System from 1978 examinations and onwards. In this system all the cadres/joint cadres were divided into zones and the candidates were given the opportunity to indicate their preferences zone-wise and also for two cadres in each zone. The allocation was being made keeping in view the rank and preferences of the candidates subject to allocation of vacancies in each cadre between insiders and outsiders.

Our experience has shown that the limited zonal preference system of allocation suffers from a number of deficiencies. Under this syste

Click Here to Read the rest of this document