( 1 ) HEARD Sri Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, sri V. T. Gopalan, Additional Solicitor general for India instructed by sri B. Naraslmha Sharma, learned additional Central Government Standing counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned government Pleader for Services-I for the 2nd respondent and Sri Madhav Pannikar, advocate for Sri Bhaskar Poluri for the 4th respondent.

( 2 ) THE substantive grievance of the petitioner is as regards his allocation to the manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre of the Indian police Service. Urging the said grievance, in particular on the ground that his allocation to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre while allocating the 4th respondent to the AP cadre is illegal, the petitioner filed OA no. 155 of 2001 before the Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT ). By the order dated 9-1-2004 the OA was dismissed. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS, IN BRIEF:- (A) The petitioner and the 4th respondent appeared for the Civil services Examination 1998 (CSE 1998) conducted by the UPSC. The 4th respondent belongs to Other backward Classes (OBC) category. While the petitioner secured rank no. 95, the 4th respondent secured rank No. 133 in the over all merit list. (B) While undergoing training at mussoorie, the 1st respondent addressed a communication dated 21-10-1999 to the petitioner offering him an appointment to the IPS on the basis of his qualifying in the cse 1998 and intimating his allotment to the Manipur-Tripura joint Cadre. The petitioner was asked to convey his acceptance of the offer for appointment within the specified time. The 1 st respondent by the notification dated 26-10-1999 allocated various State cadres to the 36 candidates selected to the ips on the basis of the CSE 1998. While the petitioner was allocated to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre, the 4th respondent was allocated to the AP Cadre. (C) On 1-11-1999 the petitioner conveyed his acceptance of the offer, to the 1st respondent, in response to the 1 st respondent s letter dated 21-10-1999. (D) On 20-10-2000 the petitioner addressed the 1st respondent requesting cadre transfer/cadre reallotment to the AP Cadre. In this letter he stated that two unavoidable and unexpected vacancies had arisen in the AP Cadre even before his allotment, this fact was communicated to the 1st respondent by the AP Government and that the AP Chief Minister had also represented the matter to the concerned Union Minister requesting review and reallotment of the petitioner to the AP Cadre, vide a letter dated 30-12-99. The petitioner also referred to his personal circumstances such as his dependent brother s illness which requires his presence in AP and requested transfer or reallotment to the AP Cadre under the available powers under the IPS (Cadre) rules 1954 (for short the Cadre rules ). (E) On 31-10-2000 all the IPS probationers of the 52nd RR (1999) batch including the petitioner and the 4th respondent were intimated movement orders on completion of their 42 weeks basic training informing that they will stand relieved from the National Police academy, Hyderabad, on 31-10-2000 and they should undergo further attachments as specified in the said order. (F) The petitioner filed OA No. 155 of 2001 before the CAT for a direction to the 1 st respondent to allocate him to the AP Cadre. By the judgment dated 25-7-2001 the CAT dismissed the OA. (G) The petitioner filed WP No. 17902 of 2001 before this court against the order of the CAT dated 25-7-2001. A Division Bench of this court by the judgment dated 22-4-2003 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the CAT and remanded the issue to it to consider whether in the context of data being available as to the allotment of the several categories of persons to various states cadres, general vacancies could be decreased mechanically in a State merely because alphabetically a particular State was the first State. This Court also ob