JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeals, at the instance of Union of India¹[For short, the ‘Union’], are directed against an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 28.02.2017 whereby the appellant was directed to allocate the respondent²[For short, the ‘Applicant’] herein to the Kerala cadre of the All-India Service.

2. The applicant is a candidate seeking appointment to the All-India Services in pursuance of the Civil Services Examination-2006³[For short, the ‘CSE-2006’]. The applicant was successful as she found her name at Serial No. 20 of the candidates selected by the Union Public Service Commission, ⁴[For short, the ‘Commission’]. She belongs to Muslim community and also to the Other Backward Class⁵[For short, the ‘OBC’]. She was allotted Himachal Pradesh cadre after the Union sought the consent of Himachal Pradesh government on 13.11.2007, which was duly received on 17.12.2007.

3. It is thereafter that the applicant filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal⁶[For short, the ‘Tribunal’]. The Tribunal directed the Union to allot and accommodate the applicant against the outsider OBC vacancy in the Maharashtra cadre by virtue of her merit over the candidate already identified and allotted the Maharashtra cadre. The Union and the applicant aggrieved against the said order filed writ petitions before the High Court of Kerela at Ernakulam. The writ petition of the Union challenging the direction of the Tribunal to accommodate the applicant in the Maharashtra cadre was allowed. Also, even the original application filed by the applicant for declaring and directing that the applicant is eligible to be allotted the Kerala cadre was allowed.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant, though an OBC candidate, came on general merit without resorting to the relaxed standard for the candidates belonging to OBC. The applicant was one of the candidates belonging to Kerala and that the four other general category candidates were higher in merit than her. The placement of the applicant is as under:

5. In the year in question, as per the policy, there was one post meant for Insider Unreserved candidate against which Prasanth N (Merit No. 4) from Kerala was allocated Kerala cadre. The second vacancy for OBC Outsider was allotted to Patil Ajit Bhagwatrao (Merit No. 131). The grievance of the applicant was that she had a better merit than Shri Sachindra Pratap Singh (Merit No. 26) who was allocated the Maharashtra cadre as an OBC candidate. The argument of the applicant was that she was higher in merit as an OBC candidate, therefore, she should have been allocated the Maharashtra cadre. Such argument was accepted by the Tribunal.

6. The High Court, in the writ petitions against the order of the Tribunal, inter alia held that the Kerala government had submitted requisition for a minimum of 7 candidates. Even as per the Union, the cadre was of 124 direct recruits and the available officers were 119, therefore, there was a cadre deficiency of 5 officers. It was held that 5 admitted deficit vacancies were required to be filled up by following the outsider-insider ratio in the given cycle of 30-point roster, then there would be an insider vacancy, to be given either to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes⁷[For short, the ‘SC/ST’] or the OBC. Since the