1. Administrative dispute regarding the inter-state allocation of a civil service officer following state bifurcation and subsequent administrative re-allocation orders. (Para 2 , 5 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, JJ.
The State of Telangana - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Ratnaker Jauhari IFS and others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.31405 and 31411 of 2024
Decided On : 25-11-2024
Important Points
The re-allocation of an All India Service officer by the controlling authority is an independent administrative act. Such allocation remains valid even if the preceding Tribunal order was based on overturned precedents, particularly if the state had previously requested such re-allocation.
Subject
Service Law - All India Service / Cadre Allotment
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Allotment of All India Service Officers - Bifurcation of States - Validity of allocation guidelines and subsequent re-allocation - Where the controlling authority, after independent examination, issues revised allocation orders for an officer to a specific state, such orders are valid and binding. (Paras 17, 18)
(B) Administrative Law - Challenge to orders of Tribunal - Laches and Acquiescence - If a State party fails to challenge a Tribunal order and instead requests the Union government to act upon it, subsequent challenges to the validity of that original order are untenable after revised allocation is granted. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
An officer of an all-India service was initially allotted to one state following the bifurcation of a composite state. This allotment was challenged, and the Tribunal directed allotment to another state. While the guidelines upon which the Tribunal relied were subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court in a separate matter, the Union government, acting on a representation by the state, re-allocated the officer to the state. The state subsequently refused to issue posting orders, prompting the officer to approach the Tribunal, which directed the state to provide posting and salary from the date the officer reported for duty.
Findings of Court:
The Union government is the authority for allocating officers to states. The revised allocation orders were issued after independent examination of the case and upon the recommendation of the state. The state's failure to challenge the initial Tribunal order and its subsequent request for re-allocation makes the current challenge unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the re-allocation orders issued by the Union government are void if the initial Tribunal order they followed was based on a precedent that was later overturned.
Ratio Decidendi: The re-allocation of an officer by the cadre controlling authority is an independent administrative decision. Even if a prior Tribunal order was based on overturned guidelines, a subsequent independent decision by the Union government to re-allocate the officer is valid and must be implemented, especially when the state had requested such re-allocation and failed to challenge the initial order.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed.
(B) Administrative Law - Challenge to orders of Tribunal - Laches and Acquiescence - If a State party fails to challenge a Tribunal order and instead requests the Union government to act upon it, subsequent challenges to the validity of that original order are untenable after revised allocation is granted. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
An officer of an all-India service was initially allotted to one state following the bifurcation of a composite state. This allotment was challenged, and the Tribunal directed allotment to another state. While the guidelines upon which the Tribunal relied were subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court in a separate matter, the Union government, acting on a representation by the state, re-allocated the officer to the state. The state subsequently refused to issue posting orders, prompting the officer to approach the Tribunal, which directed the state to provide posting and salary from the date the officer reported for duty.
Findings of Court:
The Union government is the authority for allocating officers to states. The revised allocation orders were issued after independent examination of the case and upon the recommendation of the state. The state's failure to challenge the initial Tribunal order and its subsequent request for re-allocation makes the current challenge unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the re-allocation orders issued by the Union government are void if the initial Tribunal order they followed was based on a precedent that was later overturned.
Ratio Decidendi: The re-allocation of an officer by the cadre controlling authority is an independent administrative decision. Even if a prior Tribunal order was based on overturned guidelines, a subsequent independent decision by the Union government to re-allocate the officer is valid and must be implemented, especially when the state had requested such re-allocation and failed to challenge the initial order.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner: Special Government Pleader
For the respondents: Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel representing Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Avinash Reddy, learned counsel, Sri A. Raghu Ram, learned Assistant Government Pleader
For the petitioner: Special Government Pleader
For the respondents: Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel representing Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Avinash Reddy, learned counsel, Sri A. Raghu Ram, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends allocation guidelines were upheld by a judicial order, while respondents argue the administrative re-allocation constitutes an independent, valid exercise of sovereign power. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
3. The court found that despite earlier judicial rulings regarding allocation guidelines, the subsequent specific administrative re-allocation orders by the Union of India acquired finality and merit no interference. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. When a competent authority independently re-examines and modifies a personnel allocation after judicial orders, such actions based on current administrative exigencies are not subject to retrospective nullification. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the tribunal's directions for posting and salary payments to the re-allocated officer. (Para 21 )
6. Does a subsequent administrative re-allocation order render moot a challenge based on earlier invalid judicial precedents regarding allocation guidelines?
Yes, where the competent authority independently exercises its power to re-allocate an officer based on specific representations, that administrative action takes precedence, rendering challenges based on previous, now-set-aside tribunal orders regarding general guidelines inapplicable. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. Can a state entity challenge administrative allocation orders after failing to contest them at the appropriate stage following a re-allocation decision?
No, a state that fails to challenge tribunal orders in a timely manner or ignores administrative re-allocation proceedings that have reached finality cannot later seek to set aside those orders via collateral challenges in writ jurisdiction. (Para 20 )
ORDER :
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.
Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order since the issue raised in both these Writ Petitions is one and the same.
2. W.P.No.31405 of 2024 is filed by the State against the order, dated 04.10.2024 passed in O.A.No.1556 of 2024 and W.P.No.31411 of 2024 is also filed by the State against the order, dated 16.03.2022 passed in O.A.No.215 of 2016, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). In both the cases, contesting respondent is one and the same and the issue pertains to allotment of the contesting respondent (Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer) to the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh is also involved.
3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for petitioner-State and Mr. R. Anurag, learned counsel representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Avinash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri A. Raghu Ram, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for respondent No.4.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.31405 of 2024 are hereunder discussed.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State had contended that the contesting respondent is an Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer from the 1994 batch, who served as Chief Conservator of Forest in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh. Consequent upon the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, the contesting respondent was allotted to State of Andhra Pradesh by respondent No.1 on 05.03.2015, as per the guidelines framed by the Pratyush Sinha Committee. Challenging his allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh and guidelines framed for allocation, the contesting respondent has filed O.A.No.215 of 2016 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. by following its earlier order, dated 29.03.2016 passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 vide order, dated 16.03.2022. Learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner had further contended that the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the allocation guidelines in O.A.No.1241 of 2014, dated 29.03.2016 and directed the Union of India to allot the contesting respondent to the State of Telangana. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.215 of 2016, makes it clear that the said O.A. was allowed only on the ground that its earlier order i.e., O.A.No.1241 of 2014 was allowed vide order, dated 29.03.2016, wherein, the guidelines of allocation of Officers between the two states were held to be bad.
6. Aggrieved by the order, dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1241 of 2014, the Union of India has filed W.P.No.4938 of 2017 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 10.01.2023 was pleased to set aside the order, dated 29.03.2016 passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 and upheld the guidelines of allocation. When the orders passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 were set aside, on the same analogy, the order, dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.215 of 2016 is also liable to be set aside. Learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the Tribunal cannot allocate the Officers to the respective states, it is only the Union of India, which has to allocate the Officers to the respective States. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the contesting respondent. Moreover, the Tribunal has allowed O.A.No.215 of 2016 by relying on its earlier orders in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 and the orders passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 were set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4938 of 2017 vide order, dated 10.01.2023. However, the Union of India has not challenged the Tribunal’s order in the present case i.e., O.A.No.215 of
