Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, SUREPALLI NANDA, JJ.
Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training - Petitioner
Versus
Somesh Kumar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4938 of 2017
Decided On : 10-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. litigation background and claims raised (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner (Para 11) |
| 4. state's position and support for petitioner (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. rejoinder by respondent (Para 13) |
| 6. responses from respondent's counsel (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. consideration of arguments and legal issues (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. cat's judgment framework and issues considered (Para 23) |
| 9. legal framework regarding all india services (Para 24) |
| 10. overview of statutory provisions (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 11. regulations applicable to the case (Para 28 , 29) |
| 12. provisions regarding services during state bifurcation (Para 30 , 31) |
| 13. establishment of advisory committees under reorganization act (Para 32) |
| 14. constitution of advisory committees and recommendations undertakings (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 15. recommendations for allocation and resulting allocations (Para 36) |
| 16. implementation and practical ramifications of the allocation process (Para 37 , 38) |
| 17. analysis of cat's rationale and findings (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 18. review of guidelines and cat's findings (Para 42) |
| 19. discussion on inclusion of committee member with potential conflict (Para 43) |
| 20. debate on dr. p.k. mohanty's retirement status and implications (Para 44 , 45) |
| 21. constitutional principles governing all india services allocation (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 22. concluding analysis on legality and jurisdiction of cat's decision (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 23. final verdict and conclusion (Para 54 , 55) |
ORDER :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and the then Additional Solicitor General of India representing Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana for respondent No.2; and Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for services (AP) representing respondent No.3.
2. This petition has been filed by Union of India through the Secretary to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension in the Department of Personnel and Training under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Central 3 Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (briefly, ‘CAT’ hereinafter) in O.A.No.1241 of 2014.
Facts and Pleadings:
3. First respondent is an All India Service officer allocated to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) on the basis of the civil services examination of 1988 under unreserved category. He is an IAS officer of the 1989 batch.
4. Since 1989 first respondent served in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh under unreserved category in different capacities. At the relevant point of time, he was serving as Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).
5. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in terms of the Andhra Pradesh REORGANISATION ACT , 2014 (briefly, ‘the Reorganization Act’ hereinafter). The notified date being 02.06.2014, the two states came into being with effect from 02.06.2014. The REORGANISATION ACT necessitates division and re-allocation of personnel serving in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh including those belonging to the All India Services to the two successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Section 76 of the REORGANISATION ACT provided for modalities for allocation of All India Service officers between the two States.
5.1. Section 80 (1) of the REORGANISATION ACT provided that the Central Government may, by an order, establish one or more advisory committees within a period of thirty days from the date of enactment of the REORGANISATION ACT for the purpose
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Respondent was entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana even on spouse ground and the Union of India erred in rejecting the requ....
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.
Allocation of state cadre employees must consider spouse factors and local status as per guidelines under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.
The allocation of cadre to IPS officers must adhere to the principles of equality and the insider-outsider roster as per the Cadre Allocation Policy.
Allocations of posts in public service must follow seniority and established procedures, with options processed as per the applicable guidelines.
Notional service from delayed appointment due to State error counts for IPS promotion eligibility via Rule 3 relaxation of 8-year requirement; mechanical rejection quashed, mandating Review Committee....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
