Cadre allocation decisions must adhere to a candidate's expressed preferences in order of merit; failing this, an insider status claim based on lower preferences is invalid.

JUDGMENT

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1517/2012, titled Sh. Raj Priy Singh v. Union of India, by which the learned Tribunal had been pleased to allow the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

“20. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the instant OriginalnApplication with the following directions:

(i) The impugned order dated 26.12.2011 is quashed and set aside;

(ii) The respondent is directed to consider the case of the applicant for allocation of the State of Rajasthan by creating a supernumerary post;

(iii) The exercise ordained above shall be completed by the respondent within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; and (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.”

CASE OF THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

2. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent had joined the Indian Forest Service on 30.08.2010 as a probationer after qualifying for the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2009 (IFS, 2009).

3. While filling up the form, he had recorded his willingness to work in the Home State of Rajasthan in Column 19 thereof by writing ‘yes’.

4. The respondent claimed that he had recorded Rajasthan as his first choice of posting by way of his e-mail dated 08.05.2010. The respondent, before the said e-mail, had uploaded the preference forms, including one dated 23.04.2010, wherein he gave Rajasthan as a 6^th choice in preference. He submitted before the learned Tribunal that this was due to a confusion being caused between the roman and the arithmetic numerals used in the form. It was submitted by the respondent that this confusion was recognized by the petitioner, leading to the petitioner issuing the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 11.03.2011.

5. The respondent claimed that though Rajasthan was mentioned by the respondent as his 6^th preference, being his Home State and the respondent having already stated in his application that he was willing to be posted in the Home State, the same was of no consequence and the respondent should have been treated as an ‘insider candidate’ by the petitioner while allocating the cadre in terms of the Cadre Allocation Policy for the All India Services- IAF/IPS/IFS, 2008, issued vide O.M. dated 10.04.2008 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Cadre Allocation Policy’).

6. The respondent further claimed that as per the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Selection List of IFS, 2009, there were three insider vacancies available for Rajasthan; one in General category, one in OBC category, and one in ST category. The respondent claimed that applying Clauses 5 to 8 of the Cadre Allocation Policy, the third insider vacancy should have been allocated to the respondent, instead he was allocated Nagaland cadre, which was his 22^nd preference, by an incorrect interpretation of the Cadre Allocation Policy.

7. With the above grievance, the respondent had approached the learned Tribunal in form of the above O.A., praying for the following reliefs:

“a) Direct the respondent to allocate Rajasthan Cadre to the applicant.

b) Direct the respondent to take necessary action to allocate cadre to the applicant as per his eligibility according to preference of the applicant out of the remaining 11 vaca