IMPORTANT POINT
The allocation of cadre in the IAS is governed by strict principles that prioritize category-specific vacancies, and candidates do not have a right to claim allocation to their home state.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No.398 of 1996, by which request of the petitioner to allocate him Gujarat cadre as insider in place of Tamil Nadu.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the only person who was appointed to the Indian Administrative Services from Gujarat on successfully clearing of the Civil Services Examination in the year 1994 and despite there being a vacancy for insider in the State of Gujarat, the petitioner was allocated Tamil Nadu Cadre as an outsider.

2.1 It is submitted that the Union Government has come out with the policy of cadre allocation for All India Service Officers wherein certain principles are enunciated for the distribution of vacancies between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ on the basis of roaster system. According to the said policy, the allocation of outsiders, irrespective of there being general candidates or reserved candidates, men or women, would be as per the roaster system after placing “insiders” at their proper places for the list prepared of the successful candidates. It has been further provided that the candidates belonging to the reserved category whose position in the merit list is such that they could be appointed to the service even in the absence of any reservation, the said candidates are to be treated at par with general candidates for the purposes of allotment although, they are counted against reserved vacancies. It is pertinent to note here that the policy specifically provides that if there is a shortfall in general “insider” quota, it could be filled up/made up by insider reserved candidates.

2.2 It is submitted that the Union Government had converted reserved point for OBC to that of SC/ST in Haryana Cadre as well as in Karnataka Cadre but in the case of petitioner, the said principle has not been adopted in Gujarat Cadre. The representation of the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that there was no vacancy for SC/ST candidate in the Gujarat Cadre. Thus, the Union Government deviated from its own cadre allotment policy and grossly violated the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajiv Yadav's Case. The petitioner being an insider, was entitled to be allocated to Gujarat Cadre against existing insider vacancy rather than accommodating an outsider candidate into insider vacancy against the policy of cadre allotment.

2.3 It is submitted that despite there being two vacancies in Gujarat Cadre in the year 1995, and last allocation having been stopped at outsider point in 1991, the insider vacancy ought to have been filled up by the insider category candidate i.e. the Petitioner. Petitioner should have been given Gujarat cadre as per the principles of the cadre allotment.

2.4 It is submitted that both the vacancies in Gujarat Cadre in the year 1995 were filled up by outsiders (i) outsider general, (ii) outsider OBC. The petitioner has neither been considered as insider nor reserved category candidate.

2.5 It is submitted that the insider OBC vacancy has been converted to outsider OBC vacancy while outsider GENERAL has not been converted as insider GENERAL. Had it been done like this, petitioner being SC could have been allocated insider GENERAL slot in absence of insider GENERAL candidate.

2.6 It is submitted that Clause (vii) of the letter dated 31/05/1985 was not followed by the Union Government in allocation of the Cadre in the case of petitioner, which laid the following principles:-

(i) Distribution of reserved vacancies in each Cadre between outsider/insider is to be made in the ratio of 2:1.

(ii) Ratio is operationalized by following a cycle of outsider-insider-outsider.

(iii) Clause (vii) provides that in case of no general “insider” candidate then this shortfall is made up by an insider reserved candidate.

2.7 It is argued that the Tribunal