The main legal point established in the judgment is that a candidate has no right to claim allocation to a specific cadre as a matter of right, and the amendment to the Cadre Allocation Policy was justified to remove an anomalous situation.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 07, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.2579/2011, whereby the claim of the petitioner inter-alia for a direction to allocate him his home cadre of Rajasthan instead of Tamil Nadu was rejected. Facts

2. The petitioner was a successful candidate of Civil Services Examination (hereinafter referred to as CSE), 2009 and was allotted Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

3. The respondent notified the CSE Rules, 2009 vide Gazette Notification dated December 06, 2008. Rule 2 stipulated that a candidate was supposed to indicate his/her

preferences for various services/post for which he/she would like to be considered for appointment. The said Rule also stipulated that a candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for main examination his/her preference for various State Cadres.

4. Further Rule 19(ii) of CSE Rules, 2009 stipulated that the cadre allotment to candidates’ appointment to IAS/IPS will be governed by the policy of cadre allotment in force at the time of allotment of cadre. Due consideration will be given at the time of making allocation on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for various cadres at the time of his application.

5. Some of the preferences which the petitioner gave for various State Cadres in case of his appointment to IAS/IPS in his main examination form are as follows: State/Cadre Preference XXXX XXXX (viii) Himachal Pradesh 03 XXXX (xviii) Punjab 02 (xix) Rajasthan 01 XXXX (xxi) Tamil Nadu 13

6. The result of CSE, 2009 was declared on May 06, 2010 and the petitioner obtained rank 168 and was allocated the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

7. In the Rajasthan Cadre there were four vacancies in IAS. The same is given in the tabular form: Category General OBC SC/ST Insider 01 01 Nil Outsider Nil 02 Nil

8. The four vacancies were filled in the following manner:

9. The successful candidates reported to LBS National Academy of Administration, Mussorie for their Foundation Course on August 30, 2010. The respondent issued Cadre allocation policy in terms of O.M dated April 10, 2008.

10. The Foundation Course which started from August 30, 2010 at LBSNAA, Mussoorie was over on December 12, 2010 and thereafter, the next phase of training at LBSNAA, Mussoorie had started from February 20, 2011. However, even at that point of time no cadre allocation of IAS-2010 was done by the respondent.

11. The Respondent issued an O.M. dated April 21, 2011 vide which para 9 of the existing O.M. dated April 10, 2008 was amended. The said amendment was brought into force with effect from CSE, 2009

12. Pursuant to the publication of O.M. dated April 21, 2011, the respondent published the complete cadre allocation of CSE, 2009 on May 12, 2011. The petitioner was allocated Tamil Nadu Cadre.

13. The petitioner thereafter submitted his representation dated May 19, 2011 to the respondent, wherein he requested for his allocation to his home cadre Rajasthan instead of Tamil Nadu, however, no response was made thereto.

14. The petitioner thereafter sent reminders dated May 28, 2011 and June 07, 2011, however, there was no response from the respondents.

15. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.2579/2011, wherein he had sought the following reliefs: (a) Quash O.M dated 21/04/2011 of the Respondent to the extent of retrospectivity attached to it, and (b) Consequently direct the Respondent to dispose of the representation dated 19/05/2011 of the Applicant and allocate him his home cadre Rajasthan instead of Tamilnadu cadre allocated to him, and/or (c) Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon?ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

16. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was essentially on four grounds. Firstly, reliance was placed on Rule