Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10342
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, J, Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, ACJ
Amrapali Kata – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Original Application | OA No. 36/2015 | W.P. No. 7733/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ankur Chibber
For the Respondents: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Mr. B. Rajeshwar Reddy, Mrs. S. Anuradha
Allocation processes for IAS officers must adhere to statutory provisions, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination between officer categories as established by relevant guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 - Sections 76 and 80(1)(b) - The applicant challenged the rejection of her claim for mutual swapping of cadre to Telangana, citing violations of natural justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Tribunal emphasized that allocation processes must adhere to statutory provisions and established guidelines without arbitrary differentiation between officer categories. (Paras 1, 22, 30)
(B) Quasi-Judicial Decisions - Fairness and Reasoning - The Tribunal mandated that quasi-judicial decisions require clear rationale and consideration of all grievances presented by officers. The failure of the Advisory Committee to properly consider the applicant’s lengthy service in Telangana and her claims for swapping options was deemed unreasonable. The Tribunal held that the original inquiry process was deficient, lacking justification for certain allocations. (Paras 9, 12, 25)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an IAS officer originally allocated to Andhra Pradesh, challenged her subsequent allocation to the same State despite her service in Telangana and arguments against guidelines favoring certain officer categories for swapping. The Tribunal considered her lengthy service in Telangana and prior dealings regarding her allocation. (Paras 1, 2, 30)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, quashing the allocative decision of the respondents, stating that the denial of her right to swap was arbitrary and non-compliant with applicable guidelines. The respondents were directed to treat her as allocated to Telangana and issue consequential orders. (Paras 32)
Issues: The key issues addressed include whether fair and equitable treatment principles under the AP Reorganization Act and constitutional rights were violated in the allocation process, and whether the guidelines were uniformly applied to all AIS officers. (Paras 3, 5, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that allocation guidelines should be consistently applied without discrimination and that the failing to consider an officer's service history and preferences in allocations amounts to arbitrary action. The Tribunal affirmed the need for fair treatment in administrative actions. (Paras 30, 32)
Result: The application was allowed; the impugned orders dated 09.10.2024 were quashed. The applicant was to be considered for allocation to Telangana as per the Tribunal's directives.
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
―Hence, in the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order No.22012/04/2024-AIS-I/10, dated 09.10.2024 and the consequential proceedings in No.22012/04/2024-AIS-1/20, dated 09.10.2024 issued by the 1st Respondent herein whereby and whereunder, her claim for mutual swapping has been rejected and too declare the same as being illegal, arbitrary and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned action is contrary to the provisions of Section 80(1) (b) of AP Reorganization Act, 2014 and further violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and by further declaring that the applicant is entitled to be considered for allocation to the State of Telangana and issue such other order or orders as this Hon‘ble Court may deem think fit and proper.‖
2. Facts of the case:
(i) The applicant is a Member of All India Service (IAS) of 2010 batch, having been directly recruited and allocated to the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, under Insider Unreserved category. The applicant joined the IAS on the 30th August 2010 at the Lal Bahadur Sastri National Academy of Administration, Mussori. Throughout her service of 14 years, she worked in the State of Telangana, except for 4 years period spent in Delhi on Central deputation with the Government of India
(ii) The Government of India, under Section 76 r/w Section 80 of the Re- organization Act, 2014 (for short “Act 2014”) constituted an Advisory Committee on 28.03.2015 headed by Sri Pratyush Sinha to make recommendations on the determination of cadre strength of all the three All India Services (AIS) of the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, to recommend objective and transparent criteria for allocation of personnel belonging to the three services and to consider any representations made by the officers belonging to the AIS. Accordingly, the Pratyush Sinha Committee formulated guidelines, which were published on the website of the 1st respondent on 22.08.2014 along with a notice calling for objections on the provisional allocation made, wherein the applicant was allotted to Andhra Pradesh cadre. The applicant submitted a representation on 27.08.2014 to the Committee.
(iii) Subsequently, the 1st respondent, issued another set of guidelines and provisional list of All India Services officers and the same were published on the website on 10.10.2014. In these guidelines, mutual exchange/ swapping has been permitted for Promotee IAS officers across any category or batch. However, within the class of Direct Recruit IAS officers, for each Reserved category swapping was permitted within a particular roster band, whereas, in the case of Direct Recruitee Unreserved category, both Insiders and Outsiders, swapping was permitted within a batch alone. The applicant once again raised her objections vide representation, dt. 22.10.2014, as well as in her personal hearing before the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued notice on 26.12.2014, calling for fresh objections to the provisional list dt. 10.10.2014, wherein, vide para 2(i) thereof, it is indicated that all officers may opt for swapping within the same category and in the same grade pay as on 01.06.2014. Final allocation list was published by the 1st respondent, vide order, dt. 05.03.2015, wherein, the applicant was allotted to Andhra Pradesh cadre.
(iv) Being aggrieved in so far as restricting mutual swapping to similar grade pay as on 01.06.2014; guidelines dt. 26.12.2014 and the consequential final allocation of the applicant to the Andhra Pradesh, the applicant filed OA No. 36/2015 before this Tribunal, which was allowed, vide order, dt. 29.03.2016. Challenging the said order of this Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed WP No. 77
