Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Siva Sankar Lotheti Ias vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 28 February, 2025
OA 020/01616/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.020/01616 of 2024
Reserved on: 11.02.2025
Pronounced on: 28.02.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
Siva Sankar Lotheti, IAS,
S/o. Sanyasappadu,
Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa District,
Residing at Collector Camp Office,
Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Shaik Khaja Basha)
Vs
1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
(All India Services-IAS),
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
AP Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
3. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
4. Lal Bahadur Sastry National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA),
Represented by its Director,
Mussorie, Uttarakhand.
5. Khandekar Committee,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Shri Deepak Khandekar, IAS (Retd.,),
Ex. Secretary, DOP &T,
O/o. Departmental of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
(All India Services - IAS), North Block, New Delhi-1.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC with Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG
Mr. B. Rajeswara Reddy, GP for AP,
Mrs. S. Anuradha, SC for TG)
Page 1 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:
―In the above facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the Order No. 22012/04/2024-AIS-I/8 dt. 09.10.2024 and Order No. 22012/04/2024-AIS-I/8 dt. 09.10.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 (i.e. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi), based on the Recommendation of the Khandekar Committee Report Dt. 16.07.2024 i.e. Respondent No.5 in rejecting the claim of the applicant to consider his domicile status as Andhra Pradesh cadre without consideration on the finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No./020/327/2015 and Para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines as arbitrary, illegal, against the rule of law and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 309 of Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the Impugned Order No. 22012/04/2024-AIS-I/8 dt. 09.10.2024 and Order No. 22012/04/2024- AIS-I/8 dt. 09.10.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 with a direction to the Respondent No.1 to allocate the applicant to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.‖
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant successfully cleared 2012 UPSC examination - All India Service (Civil Services) and he has been recruited into Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 2013. The applicant joined the IAS service on 2nd September, 2013 at Lal Bahadur Sastry National Academy of Administration ( for short LBSNAA), Mussorie. During the training in LBSNAA, the applicant has been allotted to the Andhra Pradesh as Insider. In pursuance of the GO Rt. No. 2409 of 2014 dated 16.06.2014, he joined as Assistant Collector (Under Training), Guntur after being relieved from LBSNAA on 03.06.2014. While so, the 1st respondent, by its notification dated 28.03.2014, constituted a 5- Member Advisory Committee chaired by Sri Pratyush Sinha, IAS to make recommendations on the determination of cadre strengtrh of three All India Services (AIS) of the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, after bifurcation of the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, to consider the representations/ comments made by the stakeholders and to recommend objective and transparent criteria for the allocation/ distribution of Page 2 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 personnel belonging to the three services. The 1st respondent has approved the guidelines formulated by the Advisory Committee constituted by the 1st respondent by its notification dt. 28.03.2014 for the allocation of All India Services officers, borne on the undivided cadre of Andhra Pradesh between separate cadres of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and published the approved guidelines on the website of the Respondent No.1 on 22.08.2014 calling for objections, if any, on the provisional allocation made by the said Committee. As per the said provisional list, the applicant has been shown as Insider of Telangana under the "List of RR - Insider (Reserved-SC) IAS officers of Telangana" considering his permanent postal address given in the Detailed Application Form (for short DAF).
3. It is contended by the applicant that as per paragraph 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines, the domicile status of an IAS officer concerned would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute, where the officer joined for the first time and in the absence of such information, the criteria provided under clauses (i) to (v) of para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines is to be taken into consideration for the determination of the domicile status. The applicant states that, he belongs to Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh State. The information contained in the dossiers shows State of Andhra Pradesh as domicile of the applicant and he has also specifically mentioned in the dossier of LBSNAA (Training Institute) that his state of domicile is Andhra Pradesh. However, the Committee, having failed to see that his case is covered under the first part of para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines, has erroneously taken into consideration the permanent postal address of the applicant to determine his domicile status, contrary to the approved guidelines vide para 5.1.3. Therefore, the action of the Committee in determining the domicile of the applicant by disregarding the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institute is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines. Page 3 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
4. It is further stated that, challenging the provisional allocation of the applicant to the State of Telangana vide notice dt. 22.08.2014, he filed OA No. 1114 of 2014 and the said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dt. 24.09.2014 directing the Advisory Committee to consider the representation of the applicant dt. 28.08.2014, in accordance with the Guidelines, more particularly para 5.1.3. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No.1 issued order dt. 12.01.2015 stating that on total number of Direct Recruitment officers in position and avialable for distribution/ allocation are 191, and in the shortfall of 70 officers and the distribution of IAS officers between the two States is to be made in the ratio of 13:10 (AP: Telangana) and for the purpose of allocation/ distribution of the officers, the domicile status of the officers has to be determined on the basis of the information contained in the dossiers of UPSC/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued notification dt. 26.12.2014 without reference to the earlier notificatioin dt. 22.08.2014 issued by the Advisory Committee, by exercing the powers conferred upon it by Section 76(3), read with Section 79 and 81 of the AP Re-organization Act, read with Indian Administrative Service Rules, 1954. In the said notification, the applicant was allocated to the State of Telangana cadre and placed at Sl.No. 124 in the list of IAS officers. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 1533 of 2014, wherein this Tribunal granted an interim stay vide order dt. 31.12.2014 and the same was extended from time to time.
5. During the pendency of the said OA, the 1st respondent issued final allocation published on 05.03.2015, wherein, the applicant has once again been allocated to the State of Telangana on erroneous determination of his domicile status, contrary to para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines. Aggrieved by the said Page 4 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 final allocation, the applicant once again approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 327/2015 and this Tribunal allowed the said OA on 29.03.2016. Therefore, in view of the orders passed in OA No. 327/2015, the other OA filed by the applicant i.e. OA No. 1533/2014 was closed vide order dt. 29.03.2016. It is stated that, aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 327/2015, the Union of India filed WP No. 7887 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dt. 03.01.2014 disposed of the said writ petition along with a batch of cases i.e. WP No. 5896 of 2017 & batch, with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the representation of the applicant by giving an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Hon'ble High Court also directed all the officers including the applicant to submit a detailed representation seeking re- allocation to the respective States. Accordingly, he made a detailed representation to the Secretary, DOPT requesting to afford personal hearing. DOPT also vide letter dt. 21.03.2024 requested the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to seek representations from the concerned Officers and forward the same to it and accordingly, the State of Andhra Pradesh forwarded the representations on 12.04.2024. The 1st respondent vide Order dt. 21.03.2024 constituted a Single Member Committee comprising Sri Deepak Khandekar, IAS (Retd), former Secretary, DOPT for reconsideration of final allocation of AIS officers, who were before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 5896/2017 & Batch, between the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The Khandekar Committee submitted its report on 16.07.2024 on the submissions made by the applicant on 20.05.2024 and 25.06.2024. Based on the same, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order dt. 09.10.2024, rejecting the claim of the applicant for his allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Challenging the same, the present OA is filed. Page 5 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
6. The responents, upon notices, contested the OA and the respondent Union of India filed a reply statement. In the reply statement, which is deposed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, DOPT, factual matrix of the case, as stated by the applicant, is not much in dispute. It is stated that, in compliance of the order dt. 03.01.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 5896/2017 & connected matters, the DOPT vide order dt. 21.03.2024 constituted Khandekar Committee for reconsideration of final aloocation of AIS officers between the two States. Simultaneously, representations from the officers from both the States were sought and the same were forwarded by the respectives States and they were placed before the Committee. The Committee provided opportunity to the applicant to appear before it on 20.05.2024 and 25.06.2024. The Committee submitted its report on 16.07.2024 after considering the representations/ submissions of the applicant. It is stated by the respondents that, the Khandekar Committee noted that the applicant had made representations to the Pratyush Sinha Committee to treat him as 'Insider' of Andhra Pradesh, however, it was noted that the applicant, in his Detailed Application Form (DAF) had mentioned Ranga Reddy District, which falls within Talangana, as his Permanent Postal Address, and in the approved guidelines, Permanent Postal Address is the first criteria for determination of domicile. The Pratyush Sinha Committee had considered the issues raised by the applicant in its meetings held on 02.09.2014 and 25.10.2014 and observed that the allocation of the applicant was made as per the approved guidelines. The Committee also noted that, as per the information available in DAF of the applicant, his permanent address has been mentioned as Ranga Reddy and he was accordingly, allocated to Telangana. It is further stated that the village of the applicant i.e. Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District has been Page 6 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 mentioned under place of birth column in DAF, which comes at Point No.2 in the order of preference of criteria of the approved guidelines for determing the domicile of AIS officers, and later than Permanent Address criteria. The Single Member committee observed that the applicant could not substantiate his claim for allocation of Andhra Pradesh cadre and therefore, the Committee rejected his claim.
7. The respondents contend that an All India Service officer has no right to claim allocation to a particular State of his choice or to his home State and allotment of cadre is an incidence of service and a Member of All India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India and they rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav. The respondents also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No. 4938/2017 dt. 10.01.2023, in the matter of Union of India v. Somesh Kumar, wherein the Hon'ble Court has ruled in favour of the petitioner Department and upheld the allocation the said officer to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was done in compliance with Pratyush Sinha Committee guidelines. It is also stated by the respondents that this Tribunal declined interim order in the instant case and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and the writ petition of the applicant has been dismissed along with other connected matters on 16.10.2024. As directed by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dt. 03.01.2024, in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents have duly complied with the same and no illegality has been committed by the respondents. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the OA.
8. The applicant filed rejoinder, refuting the contentions of the respondents in the reply statement, and inter alia, stating that the respondents in the counter Page 7 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 affidavit do not specify the guidelines or rules, which were followed in determining his domicile status for allocation of cadre and there is complete absence of reference to any established norms or procedural framework in this regard. The applicant stated that he was earlier selected for the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in APCT Subordinate Services and the Government of Andhra Pradesh based on his domicile status, allocated him to the Zone-1 (Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Divisions), which is determined as per Article 371D of the Constitution of India, which shows that his domicile is the present State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further stated that there is no direction to the Union of India by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dt. 03.01.2024 to constitute a Single Member Committee and conduct a roving enquiry and the directions was only to consider the representations of the officers. The report of the Khandekhar Committee was also not furnished to the applicant and the said Committee erred in falling back on the recommendations of the Pratyush Sinha Committee. The applicant stated that, he had specifically mentioned his Permanent Address, Postal Address and Home Town Declaration for the claim of LTC as Dharmavaram Village, Sringavarapu Kota Mandal, Andhra Pradesh in LBSNAA-CMS. He was also issued an integrated certificate bearing No. 44/98 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, S. Kota Mandal, much prior to his selection, certifying his nativity i.e. Dharmavaram Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
9. It is further stated by the applicant that at the time of filling up of the application, since the father of the applicant was paralysed and the native village of the applicant being a remote place, as a precautionary measure, he gave the postal address of his father-in-law at Ranga Reddy District, Telangana only for the purpose of postal communication. Even the permanent address of his parents is Dharmavaram village only. He stated that the judgment in Rajiv Yadav, cited by the respondents, is not applicable to the present case in view of the facts and Page 8 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 circumstances of the case. It is stated that the respondents have admitted in the counter affidavit that Permanent Postal Address mentioned in the Detailed Application Form (DAF) has been used for determining the domicile status of the applicant, which is contrary to the approved guidelines Para 5.1.3, as per which, domicile status has to be determined based on the information contained in the UPSC Dossier or the training institute records and not merely based on the Permanent Postal Address in the DAF. The Hon'ble High Court did not find fault with the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 327/2015 and no adverse order was passed against the applicant and therefore, finding of this Tribunal in its order dt. 29.03.2016 in OA No. 327/2015 has become final.
10. As stated by the applicant in his rejoinder, when this OA along with connected matters came up for admission, this Tribunal was not inclined to grant any interim relief vide order dt. 15.10.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of this Tribunal, this applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court vide WP No.28734 of 2024, wherein the order of this Tribunal has been confirmed. Thereafter, the applicant herein carried the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) Diary No. 48495 of 2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was disinclined to entertain the matter and dismissed the SLP vide order dt. 22.10.2024. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave liberty to the applicant to pray for expeditious disposal of the OA and the same should be considered by this Tribunal, uninfluenced by the dismissal of the SLP. Therefore, after completion of the pleadings in this OA and upon request made by the learned counsel for the applicant for expeditious diosposal of the OA , this matter was taken up for hearing.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
Page 9 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
12. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 is contrary to the purport of the para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines for allocation of AIS Officers borne on the cadre of composite State of Andhra Pradesh, between the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. It is further argued that the recommendations of the Khandekar Committee are based on wrong appreciation of the approved guidelines more particularly para 5.1.3 thereof vis-a-vis determination of domicile status for allocation of AIS offcers borne on the cadre of undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.
13. Learned counsel strongly argued on the point that the Khandekar Committe has failed to appreciate that as per para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines, Domicile status would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC Dossiers/ Training institute, where the officer joined for the first time and the applicant has specifically mentioned in his application at LBSNAA that his Domicile is Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram, AP. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Khandekar committee has no power or authority to take a view, contrary to the findings of this Tribunal vide its order dt. 29.03.2016 in OA No.327/2015, wherein it was categorically observed that the respondents had wrongly allocated the applicant to the State of Telangana vide orders dt. 05.03.2015, contrary to the para 5.1.3 of approved guidelines. It is also argued that the view taken by the Khandekar Committee that the applicant could not substantiate his claim for allocation of Andhra Pradesh cadre and thus, recommended to reject the claim of the applicant is arbitrary, contrary to the facts and also contrary to the view taken by this Tribunal in OA 327/2015, as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, and in such circumstances, the acceptance of the said recommendation by 1st Respondent is also arbitrary and illegal. Page 10 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
14. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier when the applicant was selected for the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in APCT Subordinate Services, the Government of Andhra Pradesh considered his domicile status, alloted him to the Zone-1 (Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Divisions), which is determined as per Article 371D of the Constitution of India. Thus, the domicile of the applicant is the successor State of Andhra Pradesh, but not the State of Telangana. It is further argued that the domicile status of an officer has to be determined as per the approved guidelines and it cannot be declared on the basis of individual declarations. The applicant has filed sufficient material to show that the permanent address of his parents is in Vizianagaram District. Thus, it is argued that the applicant is entitled for the relief of allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh based on his domicile of the present State of Andhra Pradesh.
15. On the contrary, the learned counsel respondents argued that, in compliance of the order dt. 03.01.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 5896/2017 & connected matters, the DOPT vide order dt. 21.03.2024 constituted Khandekar Committee for reconsideration of final allocation of AIS officers between the two States and representations from the officers from both States, which were forwarded by the respectives States, were placed before the Committee. The Committee provided sufficient opportunity to the applicant to appear before it on 20.05.2024 and 25.06.2024. The Committee submitted its report on 16.07.2024 after considering the representations/ submissions of the applicant, wherein it is mentioned that the applicant had made representations to the Pratyush Sinha Committee to treat him as 'Insider' of Andhra Pradesh, but in his Detailed Application Form (DAF), he had mentioned Ranga Reddy District, which falls within the territory of the State of Telangana, as his Permanent Postal Address. Page 11 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024 Further argument of the respondents is that the Pratyush Sinha Committee considered the issues raised by the applicant in its meetings held on 02.09.2014 and 25.10.2014 and observed that the allocation of the applicant was made as per the approved guidelines and as per the information available in DAF of the applicant, his permanent address is mentioned as Ranga Reddy and he was accordingly allocated to the State of Telangana. It is further stated that the village of the applicant i.e. Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District has been mentioned under place of birth column in DAF, which comes at Point No.2 in the order of preference of criteria of the approved guidelines for determing the domicile of AIS officers. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that, being an All India Service officer, the applicant has no right to claim allocation to a particular State of his choice or to his home State and allocation of cadre is an incidence of service and a Member of All India Service has the liability to serve in any part of India. The respondents also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No. 4938/2017 dt. 10.01.2023, in the matter of Union of India v. Somesh Kumar, wherein the Hon'ble Court has ruled in favour of the petitioner Department and upheld the allocation the said officer to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was done in complaince with Pratyush Sinha Committee guidelines. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant is not entitled for the relief sought and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
16. On the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents have submitted the UPSC dossier and DAF in a sealed cover and the same has been taken on record. On persual of the same, it is observed that, the applicant has repeatedly given his Domicile status in detail as Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District on various occasions i.e. in the Training Institute at Mussorie, for medical examination, etc. But, at the time of filling up his application, the applicant had Page 12 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 given address for correspondence at Ranga Reddy District, which is now in the State of Telangana. On this point, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, to avoid confusion, the applicant has reiteratred the said correspondence address as permanent postal address, so that any written communication from the UPSC will reach him.
17. The issue that arises for consideration in this OA is whether the allocation of the applicant to the State of Telangana is as per the approved guidelines vide para 5.1.3 thereof. To appreciate the same, para 5.1.3 of the aprpoved guidelines is extracted here under:
―5.1.3 As far as the domicile status is concerned, it would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time. In the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per the following in their descending order of priority. The succeeding information is to be referred only when preceding information is not available:-
(i) The Permanent postal address of the officer/ Applicant in the absence of which the postal address as per entries available in the Detailed Application Form of UPSC/ dossier of the Training Institute where an officer goes for the training at the time of joining the service.
(ii) The place of birth of the Applicant, the district and State in which it is situated as given in the Matriculation examination certificate or equivalent of the officer.
(iii) The domicile factor as determined in accordance with the Presidential Order issued as per Article 371-D of the Constitution of India.
(iv) The address of the educational institutions (s) where the Applicant underwent education (matriculation level).
(v) The home town, district and the State to which the father of the officer originally belonged.― The respondents speak about the order of priority of the approved guidelines emnumerated in clauses (i) to (v) in para 5.1.3, whereas, the applicant says that he had clearly mentioned State of Andhra Pradesh as his domicile in the UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute, which comes first and only in the absence of the same, the order of priority in clauses (i) to (v) would follow. A bare reading of the entire para 5.1.3 would make it clear that the domicile status of an All India Officer would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time. In the absence of such Page 13 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 information, the basis of determination would be as per the following in their descending order of priority. Thus, according to the applicant, when he has clearly mentioned his Domicile as State of Andhra Pradesh in the Training Institute where he joined for the first time, the succeeeding clauses from (i) to (v) of para 5.1.3.
need not be looked into. But, the respondents, conveniently, ignoring the above, speak about the clause (i) of para 5.1.3 i.e. permanent address mentioned in DAF, which is not the purport of the para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines.
18. It is to be noted that the applicant was provisionally allotted to the State of Telangana vide Notice dt. 22.08.2014 and challenging the same, the applicant filed OA No. 1114 of 2014 and the said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dt. 24.09.2014 directing the Advisory Committee to consider the representation of the applicant dt. 28.08.2014, in accordance with the Guidelines, more particularly para 5.1.3 thereof. Consequently, the respondent No.1 issued order dt. 12.01.2015 stating that for the purpose of allocation/ distribution of the officers, the domicile status of the officers has to be determined on the basis of the information contained in the dossiers of UPSC/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued notification dt. 26.12.2014 without reference to the earlier notificatioin dt. 22.08.2014 issued by the Advisory Committee. In the said notification, the applicant was allocated to the State of Telangana cadre and placed at Sl.No. 124 in the list of IAS officers. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 1533 of 2014, wherein this Tribunal granted an interim stay vide order dt. 31.12.2014 and the same was extended from time to time. During the pendency of the said OA 1533 of 2014, the 1st respondent issued final allocation published on 05.03.2015, allocating the applicant to the State of Telangana. Aggrieved by the said final allocation, the applicant once again approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 327/2015 and this Page 14 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 Tribunal allowed the said OA on 29.03.2016 and in view of the said order, OA No. 1533/2014 was closed vide order dt. 29.03.2016. The operative portion of the order in OA No. 327/2015 is as follows:
―25. For the foregoing reasons and discussions made above and by following the oprder and judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 1241 of 2014 stated supra, and by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds taken by the applicant in this OA, we quash and set aside the impugned allocation Order dated 05.03.2015 in so far as the applicant is concerned as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to paragraph 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we direct the respondents to treat the applicant as an All India Services officer of the State of Andhra Pradesh cadre with all consequential benefits.
26. In the result, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.―
19. Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 327/2015, the Union of India filed WP No. 7887 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dt. 03.01.2014 disposed of the said writ petition along with a batch of cases i.e. WP No. 5896 of 2017 & batch. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted below:
―18. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, is of the considered view that a perusal of the record discloses that in all the cases, where the issue is with regard to the challenging of approved guidelines and therefore, the allocations made by the petitioner/Union of India were adjudicated only on the ground that the Tribunal has earlier held the guidelines as bad in law and invalid in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 and accordingly, the Tribunal has granted relief to all the respondents/officers by following the orders passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 dt.30-10-2014, but now the above guidelines were held to be valid by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4938 of 2017 dt.10-01-2023.
19. Therefore, the cases of the respondents/officers deserve to be reconsidered for final allocation strictly in accordance with the above guidelines framed on the basis of recommendations of /Shri Pratyush Sinha Committee between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, for allocation of IAS and IPS cadres to the respective States, and as far as observations made by the Tribunal while setting aside the allotment are concerned, we uphold the observations of the Tribunal while granting relief in favour of the respondents/officers, however, the Tribunal was not justified in allocating the respondents/officers to the States on its own. The Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the petitioners/Union of India to re-examine each and every individual case in terms of the observations made by the Tribunal and also pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the approved guidelines. Therefore ends of justice would be met, if all these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing all the respondents/officers in W.P.Nos. 5896, 6363, 6411, 6457, 7263, 7305, 7432, 7464, 7733, 7887, 12110, 12205 of 2017 and 9791 of 2022 Page 15 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 and petitioner in W.P.No.6199 of 2022 to submit a detailed representations ventilating their grievances and also seek reallocation to the respective States strictly in accordance with guidelines. Further, the respondents/officers are also entitled to raise all the legal issues in their representations and the petitioners/Union of India shall consider the same along with other issues raised earlier by the respondents/officers. Further, the petitioners shall also take into account the fact that the most of the respondents/officers have rendered around ten years of service and some of the respondents/officers were continued for a very long time in the State of Telangana/Andhra Pradesh and also examine the cases of all the respondents/officers about their individual grievances and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
20. With the above directions, W.P.Nos. 5896, 6363, 6411, 6457, 7263, 7305, 7432, 7464, 7733, 7887, 12110, 12205 of 2017 and 9791 of 2022 are disposed of. In view of disposal of W.P.No.7305 of 2017 by this Court, no further orders are necessary to be passed in W.P.No.6199 of 2022. Accordingly, W.P.No.6199 of 2022 is closed. It is needless to say that before considering the representations of the respondents/officers, the petitioners shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents/officers and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.―
20. Thus, the order of this Tribunal in OA in so far as setting aside the allocation of the applicant vide Order dated 05.03.2015 has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, but the other part of the order directing the respondents to treat the applicant as a cadre of State of Andhra Pradesh has not been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to re-consider the representation of the applicant by giving an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Hon'ble High Court also directed all the officers including the applicant to submit detailed representations seeking re-allocation to the respective States. Accordingly, the applicant made a detailed representation to the Secretary, DOPT stating that he has not only rendered ten years of service in the State of Andhra Pradesh, but his domicile is also of that State and therefore, his allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh be confirmed as per para 5.1.3 of the guidelines and also as per the findings of this Tribunal in OA No. 327/2015, as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. In the said representation, the applicant also requested for a personal hearing.
Page 16 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
21. Subsequently, the respondents constituted a Single Member committee Sri Deepak Khandekar, IAS (Retd), former Secretary, DOPT for reconsideration of final allocation of AIS officers, who were before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 5896/2017 & Batch, between the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The said committee gave opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant. Thereafter, the Khandekar Committee submitted its report on 16.07.2024 on the submissions made by the applicant on 20.05.2024 and 25.06.2024. Based on the same, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order dt. 09.10.2024, rejecting his claim for his allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
22. We have perused the order dt. 09.10.2024, impugned in the OA, wherein, it is recorded that, the applicant, vide his representation dated 05.04.2024, had specifically stated that he belongs to CSE 2012; he was allotted to erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh Cadre under category, Insider - General; that the information contained in the dossier is crystal clear and he had mentioned his domicile as Dharmavaram Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District, which is within the State of Andhra Pradesh, pre and post reorganization of the States and the same was also brought to the notice of the Pratyush Sinha Committee through his representations dt. 28.08.2014 and 25.10.2014. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the applicant appeared before the Khandekar Committee on 20.05.2024 and he submitted, inter alia, that he is an Insider of undivided of Andhra Pradesh; his case is similar to that of Ms. Srijana G., IAS (TG:2013); he had mentioned Ranga Reddy District only for correspondence address, but the same has been taken as his domicile; he claimed his domicile of Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of LTC as well. 3It is also recorded in the impugned order that, the applicant was given personal hearing before the said Page 17 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 Committee on 25.06.2024 and the applicant reiterated that while undergoing training at LBSNAA, he gave his preference as Andhra Pradesh for cadre allocation; as per para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines, the domicile status of AIS offcer would be determioned as per the UPSC Dossiers/ LBSNAA where the officer joined for the first time and the applicant mentioned Dharmavaram as his domicile; his entire education took place in Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh; even before coming to IAS, he was working as Assistant Commissioner at Visakhapatnam, which fell within Zone-1 based on his domicile in the then undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.
23. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Khandekhar Committee noted that the applicant had requested himself to be treated as 'Insider' of Andhra Pradesh and in his Detailed Application Form (DAF), he has mentioned Ranga Reddy District as his Permanent Postal Address, which now falls in Telangana. Thus, it is not disputed by the respondents that the applicant had mentioned Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh as his domicile, but the contention of the respondents is that applicant had mentioned Ranga Reddy District as his Permanent Postal Address and as per the approved guidelines, Permanent Postal Address is the first criteria for determination of domicile. This stance of the respondents is not in accordance with the approved guidelines, which are the basis for determination of domicile of an officer and the resultant allocation to a cadre of the successor States viz., State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana. As per the approved guidelines vide para 5.1.3, extracted supra, domicile of an officer would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time and only in the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per the clauses (i) to (v) of para 5.1.3 in their descending order of priority. Page 18 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
24. In similar circumstances, this Tribunal adjudicated OA No. 230/2020 and passed order dt. 09.11.2020, granting relief in favour of the applicant therein. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the said judgment in support of his case. We have carefully perused the said judgment and the relevant observations are extracted hereunder:
―IV. The cardinal aspect related to the issue, is essentially implementing the approved principles of the Advisory Committee in allocation of the AIS officers among the 2 successor States of A.P and Telangana. The 8 Principles laid down, as given in the reply statement at para 3.12, are as follows:
―3.12 After detailed consideration of the statutory provisions and case law regarding allocation of cadres in All India Services, the Advisory Committee recommended the norms and principles to be adopted for allocation of Telangana Cadre to All India Services officers borne on the cadre of undivided Andhra Pradesh. The main features of the principles adopted for distribution are stated as under:-
i) The AIS officers borne on the cadre of undivided Andhra Pradesh as on 1st June, 2014 would be distributed.
ii) They would be distributed in the ratio of 13:10 between Andhra Pradesh and Tel-
angana keeping main features with respect to DR/Promotee, insider/ outsider and reserved/ general intact. Any deficit or surplus from cadre strength existing in un- divided AP would be distributed pro-rata.
iii) Promotion quota (PQ) officers would be allocated as per their domicile status as communicated by the State Government. Any surplus of officers in any State has to be shifted to the other by following a roster.
iv) Direct recruit insiders would be sub-divided into categories such as UR/OBC/SC and ST. They would be distributed on the basis of their domicile status. Any sur- plus in any of the categories would be moved to the other State as per roster.
v) Direct recruit outsiders would be sub-divided category wise and distributed as per a roster.
vi) The officer picked up within the roster block for shifting to a State would have an option for exchange with willing officers within the roster block in descending or- der of seniority if necessary. This would be adopted for all officers and all catego- ries except UR category in direct recruit outsiders.
vii) For UR category under direct recruit outsiders, swapping of Officers on the basis of their willingness would be available within a batch rather than the roster block.
viii) After finalizing the exercise an mentioned in para (i) to (vii) above, a fresh window will also be opened to all officers to opt for swapping with another officer within the same category and in the same grade pay as on 01.06.2014. Married couples belonging to All India Services and officers retiring within 2 years will also be giv- en opportunity for shift of cadre. ― Important among the above principles, is clause iv, which speaks about distribution of AIS officers, who are direct recruit insiders belonging to the UR/OBC/SC/ and ST category, on the basis of domicile Status. Applicant was appointed in 1988 as a Direct recruit insider belonging to the UR category. Domicile being the key to the allocation process, we would like to look at the concept of domicile, in its wholesomeness, to arrive at a legally compatible solution to the dispute in question.
Page 19 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024 V. ‗Domicile' by definition would mean the country/State/place that a person treats as his permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with. In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently.
Depending on a person's circumstances, domicile has historically been based upon domicile of origin, choice and dependency. In the instant case, we are concerned with the domicile of origin and choice.
a. The domicile of origin is acquired by i the father's domicile, where the father was alive at the child's birth, ii. the mother's domicile, where the father was not alive at the child's birth, or where the child was illegitimate iii. where the parents were not known, the domicile was the place in which the child was found b. Coming to the domicile of choice, it would be acquired, i. when a child reached the age of majority, and had subsequently settled in another jurisdiction with the intention of making it their permanent home II. when a person moves away from a domicile of choice with the intention of settling in another jurisdiction, but has not yet done so, their domicile reverts to the domicile of origin until settlement in a new permanent home has taken place.
The general principles of domicile are that a person can have only one domicile at any given instant of time. It is settled in law that every individual, the moment he is born, he acquires the domicile of the father, which is the domicile of origin, as explained above. The domicile of choice is acquired when on becoming major, one elects to do so and continues to hold the acquired domicile as per his will and wish. When an individual's domicile of Choice subsists the domicile of origin will recede. However, the domicile of origin being a creature of law and not being dependent on the will of the individual it revives and exists when there is no other domicile. Domicile of origin is involuntary and the domicile of choice is voluntary. Moreover, domicile of Choice is an inference from the fact of an individual fixing his residence in a particular place with the unlimited intention of continuing to reside there. There must be a residence freely chosen which should be general as well as coupled with indefiniteness and not dictated by the duties of office. The domicile of origin is extinguished by an act of law by the delivery of a death sentence or forcing someone to exile or outlawry whereas domicile of choice can be put to an end the same way as it was gained. Ordinarily domicile operates as the basis of jurisdiction, in vital aspects of a person's private life like marriage, legitimacy and succession. Every person must have a personal law, and accordingly everyone must have a domicile. An individual also receives at birth a domicile of origin which remains his domicile, wherever he goes, unless and until he acquires a new domicile. The domicile of origin is received by operation of law at birth and for acquisition of a domicile of choice one of the necessary conditions is the intention to remain there permanently. The domicile of origin provides the legitimacy as is required in deciding the allocation of a cadre. VI. Applying the above principles to the case of the applicant, we observe from the dossier of the UPSC for the CSE -1987 (Sl. 70 to 80 of the reply statement) that the district of the father of the applicant was shown as Krishna, which is a part of the successor State of A.P. Applicant was born in Vishakhapatnam which is again in the Page 20 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 successor State of A.P and by the operation of law at birth, the domicile of the applicant is the residual State of A.P. Applicant's submitted a letter on 26.4.2014 to the respondents, wherein it is clear from the details that her mother hails from Guntur which comes under the jurisdiction of the successor State of A.P. Therefore, on all counts, the domicile of origin of the applicant would necessarily be the successor State of A.P. It has not been extinguished by any act of law as no evidence to this effect has been placed on record. The principle approved condition formulated by the advisory committee for allocation of AIS officers is domicile as per clause (iv) cited supra. The involuntary domicile of origin of the applicant as per law is thus the successor State of A.P. for reasons explained. Domicile of origin extends the legitimacy to the applicant's claim for allocation of the present A.P cadre. Respondents asserted in the reply statement that the guidelines were framed after referring to relevant legal principles and consulting experts/ stakeholders. There is no disagreement with the contention but the hitch is about the application of the concept of domicile in deciding the cadre of the applicant. We find that the basic premise of law in respect of domicile of origin has not been given the required weightage, as is predetermined under law, in responding to the applicant's plea in regard to cadre allotment. It requires no reiteration that law prevails over executive instructions. Respondents chose the present postal address of the applicant given in the DAF- CSE - 1987 at column 6(a), as Secunderabad which lies in the jurisdiction of the successor State of Telangana. Based on the same and following the advisory committee guidelines, respondents claim that the Telangana Cadre was allotted to the applicant. However, applicant has explained that her father was working for the Indian Railways as Chief Engineer at Secunderabad and therefore gave the present address as Secunderabad. This is corroborated by the fact that the address given by the applicant at column 20 (c) in regard to her father's present Postal Address is 1004, Railway Officers Colony, South Lallaguda, Secunderabad. The Secunderabad address came into the picture because her father was discharging his duties as Chief Engineer, an assignment which had All India transfer liability. Therefore, the said address would be a temporary address liable for change depending on his postings and that can be no criteria to bank upon for cadre allocation, when primarily the domicile of the applicant was well established under law and is in resonance with the approved guideline of essentially considering the domicile as the preliminary condition. If sufficient material was not available to decide domicile, the other parameters would come into play. In the instant case, when domicile was the principle for allocation of cadre as per the Advisory Committee, then legalistically it has to be the successor State of A.P on the basis of well described legal principles discussed so far. There is no evidence placed on record by the respondents to establish that the applicant has changed her domicile by choice to Secunderabad nor to disprove that her domicile of origin as the successor State of A.P. We rely on the following judgments in support of our above observations:
a. George Udny v John Henry Udny of Udny [1869] UKHL 2 Paterson 1677, (1869) LR 1 HL 441 (3 June 1869), pp. 1686-1687 A person can have only one domicile at any given time, and the manner in which it could change was explained in 1869 in the House of Lords by Lord West-
bury in Udny v Udny:
It is a settled principle, that no man shall be without a domicile, and to secure this result the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicile of the father if the child be legitimate, or the domicile of the mother if illegitimate. This has been called the domicile of origin, and it is involuntary. Other domiciles are domi- ciles of choice, for, as soon as the individual is sui juris, it is competent to him to elect and assume another domicile, the continuance of which depends upon his will and act. When another domicile is put on, the domicile of origin is for that purpose relinquished, and remains in abeyance during the continuance of the domicile. But as the domicile of origin is the creature of law, and independent of the will of the party, it would be inconsistent with the principles on which it is by law created and as- cribed, to suppose, that it is capable of being, by the mere act of the party, entirely obliterated and extinguished. It revives and exists whenever there is no other domi-Page 21 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024 cile, and it does not require to be regained or reconstituted animo et facto in the manner which is necessary for the acquisition of a new domicile of choice. Domicile of choice is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man fixing voluntarily his sole or chief residence in a particular place with the un- limited intention of continuing to reside there. This is a description of the circum- stances which create or constitute a domicile, and not a definition of the term. There must be a residence freely chosen and not prescribed or dictated by any external ne- cessity such as the duties of office, the demands of creditors, or the relief of illness. And it must be residence fixed not for any defined period or particular purpose, but general and indefinite in its future duration. It is true, that residence originally tem- porary, or intended only for a limited period, may afterwards become general and unlimited, and in such a case, so soon as the change of purpose or the animus manendi may be inferred, the fact of domicile of origin may be extinguished by act of law, as, for example, by sentence of death, exile, and perhaps outlawry, but it cannot be destroyed by the act of the party. Domicile of choice, if it is gained animoet facto, may be put an end to in the same manner.
Expressions are found in some books in one or two cases, to the effect, that the first domicile remains until another is acquired. This is true, if applied to the domicile of origin, but it cannot be true if such general words were intended (which is not prob- able) to convey the conclusion, that a domicile of choice, though unequivocally relin-
quished and abandoned, clings, in spite of his will and act. to the party until another domicile has animo et facto been acquired. The cases to which I have referred are in my opinion met and controlled by other decisions, but more especially by the reason of the thing. A natural born Englishman may, if he domiciles himself in Holland, ac- quire the status civilis of a Dutchman, which is of course ascribed to him in respect of his settled abode in Holland, but if he breaks up his establishment, sells his house and furniture, discharges his servants, quits Holland, declaring that he will never re- turn to it again, and taking with him his wife and children for the purpose of travel- ling in France or Italy in search of another place of residence, can it be said, that he carries his Dutch domicile on his back, and that it clings to him pertinaciously until he has finally set up his tabernacle in another country? Such a conclusion would be absurd. But there is no absurdity, but, on the contrary, much reason in holding, that an acquired domicile may be effectually determined by an unequivocal intention and act, and that, when it is so determined, the domicile of origin instantly revives, and continues until a new domicile of choice is acquired.
b. Supreme Court of India in Union Of India And Ors vs. Dudh Nath Prasad on 4 January, 2000 in Appeal (Civil) 1387 of 1991 referred to Udny v. Udny cit- ed above and made the following observations:
Lord Macnaghten in Wrnansv..A.G., (1904) A.C. 290, observed that "Domi- cile of origin, or, as it is sometimes called, perhaps less accurate- ly, domicile of birth, differs from domicile of choice mainly in this - that its character is more enduring, its hold stronger and less easily shaken off."
xxxx To bring home the point we may quota a few words from the "New jurispru- dence (The grammar of Modern Law) by Justice P.B. Mukharji (Tagore Law Lectures), as under:
Certain principles relating to domicile have taken firm root in common Law countries. The principles may be stated in the form of propositions in the light of the famous case of Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1SC. App. 441. Evt.ry person must all the time be said to possess a domicile. There can be one domicile at a time and no person can have plural domicile. Secondly, the basic question whether certain facts do or do not constitute domicile is ordinarily decided by the municipal law of the court of the country deciding. Naturally, lexfori plays Page 22 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 a significant part in this question of Renvoi where domicile is the connecting factor. Casdagli v. Casdagli, (1919) AC 145, xxxx The classical division of domicile is well known. There are the domicile of origin, the domicile of choice and the domicile of dependence. There has been little change in the essential concept of these three domiciles. Domicile and residence are different and yet related concepts. Ordinarily domicile operates as the basis of jurisdiction, in such vital aspect of a person's private life like marriage, legitimacy and succession. But on the other hand residence operates as the basis of jurisdiction in cases like taxation, right to vote, in certain as- pects of matrimonial question, and generally in cases where public rights are involved.
c. Supreme Court of India in Abdus Samad vs State Of West Bengal on 12 Sep- tember, 1972 in AIR 1973 SC 505, 1973 CriL J 1, (1973) 1 SCC 451, 1973 (5) UJ 380 SC held as under:
6. In the present case the domicile of origin communicated by operation of law to the appellant at birth at Sylhet could not on partition of India be called Indian. The dom-
icile of choice is that every person of full age is free to acquire in substitution for that which he possesses at the time of choice. By domicile is meant a permanent home. Domicile means the place which a person has fixed as a habitation of himself and his family not for a mere special and temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home. Domicile of choice is thus the result of a voluntary choice.
7. Every person must have a domicile. A person cannot have two simultaneous domi- ciles. Domicile denotes connection with the territorial system of law. The burden of proving a change in domicile is on those who allege that a change has occurred. d. Louis De Raedt v Union of India and ors in Writ petition (Civil) Nos.1410 and 1372 of 1987 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 528 of 1987 decided on July 24,1991:
―9. There is no force in the argument of Mr.Verghese that for the sole rea- son that the petitioner has been staying in this country for more than a dec- ade before the commencement of the Constitution, he must be deemed to have acquired his domicile in this country and consequently the Indian citi- zenship. Although it is impossible to lay down an absolute definition of dom- icile, as was stated in Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, [1955] 1 SCR 697 it is fully established that an intention to reside forever in a country where one has taken up his residence is an essential constituent element for the existence of domicile in that country. Domicile has been described in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, Volume 8, Paragraph 42 1) as the legal relationship between individual and a territory with a distinctive legal system which invokes that system as his personal law. Every person must have a personal law, and accordingly every one must have a domicile. He receives at birth a domicile of origin which remains his domicile, wherever he goes, unless and until he acquires a new domicile. The new domicile, ac-
quired subsequently, is generally called a domicile of choice. The domicile of origin is received by operation of law at birth and for acquisition of a domicile of choice one of the necessary conditions is the intention to remain there permanently. The domicile of origin is retained and cannot be divested until the acquisition of the domicile of choice. By merely leaving his country, even permanently, one will not, in the eye of law, lose his domicile until he acquires a new one. This aspect was discussed in Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain (supra) where it was pointed out that if a person leaves the country of his origin with undoubted intention of never returning to it again, nevertheless his domicile of origin adheres to him until he actually settles with the requisite intention in some other country. The position was summed in Halsbury thus:
Page 23 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024 "He may have his home in one country, but be deemed to be domiciled in another."
Thus the proposition that the domicile of origin is retained until the acquisi- tion of a domicile of choice is well established and does not admit of any ex- ception.
10. For the acquisition of a domicile of choice, it must he shown that the person concerned had a certain state of mind, the animus manendi. If he claims that he acquired a new domicile at a particular time, he must prove that he had formed the intention of making his permanent home in the coun-
try of residence and of continuing to reside there permanently. Residence alone, unaccompanied by this state of mind, is insufficient.
11. Coming to the facts of the present cases the question which has to be an- swered is whether at the commencement of the Constitution of India the peti- tioners had an intention of staying here permanently. The burden to prove such an intention lies on them. Far from establishing the case which is now pressed before us, the available materials on the record leave no room for doubt that the petitioners did not have such intention. At best it can be said that they were in certain about their permanent home. During the relevant period very significant and vital political and social changes were taking place in this country, and those who were able to make up their mind to adopt this country as their own, took appropriate legal steps. So far the three petitioners are concerned, they preferred to stay on, on the basis of their passports issued by other countries, and obtained from time to time permis- sion of the Indian authorities for their further stay for specific periods. None of the applications filed by the petitioners in this connection even remotely suggests that they had formed any intention of permanently residing here.
12. None of the cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioners is of any help to them. The case of Mohd. Ayub Khan was one where the appellant had made an application to the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 for the determination of his citizen- ship. Section 9(1) says that if any citizen of India acquired the citizenship of another country between 26.1. 1950 and the commencement of the Citizenship Act, he ceased to be a citizen of India and sub-section (2) di- rects that if any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, he shall be determined by the prescribed authority. Mohd. Ayub Khan was a citizen of this country at the commencement of the constitution of India and was asked to leave the coun- try for the reason that he had obtained a Pakistani Passport. The question which thus arose in that case was entirely different. The case of Kedar Pan- dey v. Narain Bikram Sah, (supra), does not help the petitioners at all. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances this Court concluded that "the requisite animus manendi as has been proved in the finding of the High Court is correct". The Respondent Narain Bikram Sah, who claimed to have acquired Indian citizenship, had extensive properties at large number of dif- ferent places in India and had produced many judgments showing that he was earlier involved in litigations relating to title, going upto the High Courts in India and some time the Privy Council stage. He was born at Ba- naras and his marriage with a girl from Himachal Pradesh also took place at Banaras and his children were born and brought up in India. Besides his other activities supporting his case, he also produced his Indian passport. In the cases before us the learned counsel could not point out a single piece of evidence or circumstance which can support the petitioners' case, and on the other hand they have chosen to remain here on foreign passports with per- mission of Indian authorities to stay, on the basis of the said passports. Their claim, as pressed must, therefore, be rejected.‖ Page 24 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 e. Yogesh Bhardwaj v State of U.P and ors reported in (1990) 3 SCC, page 35 ―20. We find it relevant to refer to two Judgments of the Apex Court. In the case of YogeshBhardwaj vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Page 355, the Apex Court in Para 17 and 21 ob- served thus:
"17. Residence is a physical fact. No volition is needed to establish it. Unlike in the case of a domicile of choice, animus manendi is not an essential re- quirement of residence. Any period of physical presence, however short, may constitute residence provided it is not transitory, fleeting or casual. Intention is not relevant to prove the physical fact of residence except to the extent of showing that it is not a mere fleeting or transitory existence. To insist on an element of volition is to confuse the features of 'residence' with those of 'domicile'.
21. While residence and intention are the two essential elements constituting the 'domicile of choice', residence in its own right is a connecting factor in a national legal system for purposes of taxation, jurisdiction, service of sum- mons, voting etc. To read into residence volition as a necessary element is, as stated above, to mistake residence for domicile of choice, and that is the error which the High Court appears to have committed.
Where residence is prescribed within a unified legal system as a qualifying condition, it is essential that the expression is so understood as to have the widest room for the full enjoyment of the right of equality before the law. Any construction which works to the disadvantage of the citizen lawfully seeking legitimate avenues of progress within the country will be out of har- mony with the guaranteed rights under the Constitution, and such a con- struction must necessarily be avoided."
The legal axioms enunciated above by the superior judicial fora are undeniably in favour of the applicant, which affirm that applicant's domicile is the successor State of A.P. Once domicile is taken as the principle to determine the allocation of cadre, as rec- ommended by the Advisory Committee, then the applicant should have been allotted to the successor State of A.P. We therefore hold that as per law, the applicant is legally en- titled to be allotted to the successor State of A.P. Not doing so is illegal. VII. Having come to a view that the applicant is legally entitled for cadre allo- cation to the successor State of A.P., yet it would be proper to look into the contentions made by the respondents, which heavily hinge on the lateral aspects of the guidelines formulated by the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 80 of the Act 2014, in order to arrive at a final conclusion with respect to the dispute under consideration.
Indeed, it would be proper to examine the recommendations of the committee and their fall out in respect of the case of the applicant. The, said committee first and fore- most emphasized to consider the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training institute where the officer joined for the first time. In the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per parameters laid to be followed in their descending order of priority. The succeeding information is to be referred to only when the preceding information is not available. The guidelines are clear and concise and there need not have been any misgivings in implementing them. The approved guidelines of the advisory committee as presented at para 4.11 of the reply statement are reproduced hereunder:
―4.11 As per the recommendations of the Pratyush Sinha Committee, the basis of determination of domicile would be as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training institute where the officer joined for the first time as per para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines which is reproduced as under (annexure R-5):Page 25 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024 ―As far as the domicile status is concerned, it would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time. In the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per the following in their descending order of priority. The succeeding information is to be referred only when preceding information is not available:-
(i) The Permanent postal address of the officer/ Applicant in the absence of which the postal address as per entries available in the Detailed Applica-
tion Form of UPSC/ dossier of the Training Institute where an officer goes for the training at the time of joining the service.
(ii) The place of birth of the Applicant, the district and State in which it is situ-
ated as given in the Matriculation examination certificate or equivalent of the officer.
(iii) The domicile factor as determined in accordance with the Presidential Or-
der issued as per Article 371-D of the Constitution of India.
(iv) The address of the educational institutions (s) where the Applicant under-
went education (matriculation level).
(v) The home town, district and the State to which the father of the officer orig-
inally belonged.‖ VIII. The prime basis for allocation of cadre is the information contained in the UPSC dossier pertaining to domicile. The DAF (Detailed Application form) of CSE - 1987 (Civil Service Exam) of the applicant, has the following information at relevant col- umns.
Column 15 - Indicates place of birth, district and state in which situated - Visa- khapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
Column 16: Indicates Mother tongue as Telugu Column 18: Gives details of educational institutions studied in. Column 20: Indicates that her father hails from Krishna District in present day Andhra Pradesh.
Column 21: Query was - ―Having regard to answers given against column 15, 16, 18 and 20 which is the state that you would claim as your home state‖- Reply was ―ANDHRA PRADESH‖ From the above, we see that there is a specific query at Column 21 to indicate the Home State by keeping in view replies furnished at Sl. 15, 16, 18 & 20 and the applicant's re- sponse was A.P. The places indicated at Columns 15 & 20 are those which lie in the geo- graphical region of successor State of A.P. The contention of the 1st respondent that the applicant has indicated her home State as the undivided State of A.P in the DAF submit- ted to UPSC and therefore, it can be no basis to allot her to successor State of A.P, as successor States of A.P and Telangana were part of the undivided State of A.P. We agree with the respondents submission, to the extent that there can be no second opinion about the two states belonging to the erstwhile undivided State of A.P. However, the question to be answered is as to which State the applicant belongs to, after bifurcation, in the context of the information available in the DAF of CSE -1987. The places indicated against the relevant columns make it crystal clear that the applicant belongs to the suc- cessor State of A.P. The objective of the guidelines was to scrutinize the details of the DAF to decide the allocation on a fair and equitable assessment as per Section 80 (1)(b) of the Act-2014, which reads as under:
80. Advisory committees.--(1) The Central Government may, by order, establish one or more Advisory Committees, within a period of thirty days from the date of enact-
ment of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, for the purpose of assisting it in regard to--
Page 26 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
(a) the discharge of any of its functions under this Part; and
(b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provi- sions of this Part and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons.
In case if the requisite information regarding domicile is not available in the UPSC dossier then the committee has to the refer to other parameters prescribed in a descend- ing order. In the case of the applicant there was relevant information in the UPSC dossi- er, as pointed out, to prove that her domicile State is the successor State of A.P. and therefore there was no necessity to refer to the subsequent parameters to determine ap- plicant's domicile status. The reasons given by the 1st respondent in following an irrele- vant parameter are neither convincing nor logical, since they gravitate against the ap- proved guidelines.
IX. Nevertheless, Advisory Committee went ahead and allotted the State of Telangana, on the premise that the Permanent Postal address was not available in the UPSC dossier of the applicant and therefore the subsequent parameter in the descending order was the postal address of Secunderabad which was considered to decide the allotment. Well, if the respondents have followed this norm to everyone, the scenario would have been different. Facts of case, affirm that it was not to be. Pointedly referring to this yardstick of postal address, applicant has averred discrimination by claiming that in case of Sri I.V. Subba Rao who is similarly placed, has been allotted to A.P Cadre by ignoring the present postal address and considering the birth place of his father. Respondents replied by asserting that Sri I.V. Subba Rao belongs to 1979 batch and the application for CSE -1979, enclosed with the additional reply of the respondents dated 6.11.2020, contained only postal address, candidates place of birth/ State and not permanent postal address whereas in the application of the applicant for CSE -1987 it had the permanent postal address which was not filled in. Therefore, in the case of Sri I.V. Subba Rao, the place of birth of his father, had to be taken, in altogether a different context. We have perused both the application forms and found that there is no column provided to seek the place of the birth of the father of the candidate. There is a column to state the district/State, to which the father of the candidate belongs to. It is the district of the father, which appears to have been considered. Respondents have admitted at para 4.11 of the reply statement that basis of determination would be as per the parameters laid down to determine domicile, in their descending order of priority, if at the outset, there was insufficient information to decide domicile in the UPSC dossier. In case of Sri I.V. Subba Rao when the permanent address was not available, as was the case of the applicant, the succeeding information was the present Postal address which was very much available and given as Asst. Professor in English, Centre of Postgraduate Studies, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Imphal-795003, which comes under the State of Manipur. The present address given is the preceding information available in respect of Sri I.V. Subba Rao and the district of his father was the succeeding information. The guidelines, as admitted by the respondents, ordain that if the preceding information was not available then one should go ahead with the succeeding information. By adopting the succeeding information of the district of the father of Sri I.V. Subba Rao, instead of the preceding information of present postal address of Manipur, which was available, it cannot be gainsaid that the guidelines prescribed were not followed in letter and spirit. Respondents have emphasized that they have followed the guidelines and if it were to be factually correct, they should have selected Present Postal address of Sri I.V.Subba Rao, which was not the case, instead they chose the succeeding information relating to his father, which is a manifest violation of the guidelines. The only difference in case of Sri I.V. Subba Rao is that the application did not provide for permanent address and in case of the applicant, though provided she stuck it off. However, it is significant to note that in case of Sri Subba Rao the present address was ignored and strictly applied in case of the applicant, thereby discriminating the applicant. Respondents failed to explain at Page 27 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 the first instance as to why they had to choose the subsequent parameters when the information in regard to preceding parameter was available. Guidelines are emphatic, to go with the available information in the descending order. They did not speak of an eventuality where the dossier did not provide for seeking of information of permanent address and if so they can go for the succeeding information, ignoring the preceding information which was available. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that if the case of applicant was considered for AP Cadre as was done in respect of Sri I.V. Subba Rao, then the issue would not have erupted. Therefore, the contention of discrimination of the applicant has muscle in it. The guidelines/rules cannot be modified to accommodate Sri I.V.Subba Rao on the pretext that the relevant DAF did not contain the column for permanent address, albeit present address was available which precedes the information regarding his father to determine allocation. Xxx XI. The goal of the Advisory Committee, guidelines was to ensure fair and equi- table allocation of the cadre as per Section 80 (1) (b) of the Act-2014 in a manner satisfy- ing the approved guidelines, as reproduced by the respondents at para 4.11 of the reply statement. The words used are of interest and intrinsically relevant to dispute resolution of the case on hand. Therefore, we extract the same hereunder:
―In the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per the following, in the descending order of priority. The succeeding information to be referred to only when preceding information is not available.‖ The words of relevance have been marked because they have a patent bearing on the case. The words mean that in case the UPSC dossier does not have details to decide the domicile, then other parameters prescribed ought to be followed.
Xxx xxxx xxxx XXXIII. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and discussions pertaining to the relevant rules and after applying the ratio of the judgments cited, we are of the considered view that the orders issued by the 1st respondent dated 26.12.2014/ 5.3.2015 to the extent of allocation of the applicant to the successor State of Telangana is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of being arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of the guidelines formulated by invoking Section 80 of the Act, 2014 by keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S. Ramanathan Vs. Union of India (2001 (2) SCC 118). Accordingly, we quash and set aside the orders dated 26.12.2014/ 5.3.2015 to the extent of allocating the applicant to the Telangana cadre of the All India Service. We further direct the 1 st respondent to treat the applicant as an All India Service officer of the Successor State of A.P with all consequential benefits. Being aware of the fact that the applicant is holding a responsible position in the State of Telangana, we direct the 2nd respondent to make necessary arrangements to relieve the applicant within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order for reporting to the 3rd respondent. „
25. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the above order of this Tribunal has been implemented by the respondents therein without there being any challenge to the said order. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the said order is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and thereby, the applicant is also entitled for the relief sought.Page 28 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
26. On a careful consideration of the facts of the present case in juxtaposition with the facts in OA No. 230/2020, it is clear that both the cases are similar to the extent of issue of domicile. The applicant was born, he purused his studies in the successor State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. Vizianagaram District and his parents's permanent place of residence is the same. The applicant filed sufficient material in the OA, which includes his date of birth certificate; community, nativity certificate; certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Study and Conduct Certificate; Residence Certificate to testify the fact that he is a native of Dharmavaram Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The applicant also filed additional material along with rejoinder, which includes the order issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointing him as Assistant Commercial Tax officer in Vizianagaram Division, his Passport, death certificate of his father issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dharmavaram, Vizianagaram District in support of his claim of domicile of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. In the rejoinder, the applicant reiterated that, at the time of filling up of the application, as his father was paralyzed and would not be in a position to receive any postal communication, and his native village i.e. Dharmavaram being a remote place, as a precautionary measure and for better communcation, he had used the address of his father-in-law at Ranga Reddy District, which is now in Telangana, solely for the purpose of postal communication. We have also perused the application form submitted by the applicant to the UPSC, wherein, against the columns Address for correspondence and Permanent Postal Address, he mentioned the address at Ranga Reddy District, whereas, against the column Place of Birth, his native place of Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District is mentioned and against the Father's and Mother's postal address, he has given the same address of Dharmavaram Village. Further, against the columns i.e. District to which his father and mother Page 29 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 belong to, the applicant mentioned as Vizianagaram. In the application, he has also disclosed that, by then, he was already working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in Vizianagaram Division. Further, the applicant never informed that he is a resident of Ranga Reddy District, which falls within Telangana. He only mentioned Ranga Reddy District as Permanent Postal Address. Merely on the basis of Permanent Postal Address, domicile of an officer cannot be determined, more particularly when the information in the UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute as contemplated under para 5.1.3 is very much available. Even as seen from the prescribed form filled up by the applicant at the time of his medical examination on 23.04.2023, furnished by the respondents to this Tribunal, the applicant had mentioned his Present Postal Address as Dharmavaram Village, S. Kotal Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. This was very much available before the respondents and the Committees constituted by the 1st respondent. Surprisingly, the 5th respondent Committee misinterpreted the clause 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines and treated the "Permanent Postal Address" given by the applicant in his DAF as his 'Permanent Address', as evident from para 18 of the impugned order and the said interpresentation is contrary to the facts and law as well as the approved guidelines, framed and accepted by the 1st Respondent. Address for correspondence and Permanent Postal Address cannot be equated with that of Permanent Address of an individual.
27. We have also perused the record of the LBSNAA wherein, against the columns Permanent Address & Postal Address he has mentioned the address of his native place i.e. Dharmavaram Village, and against the State of Domicile, he has mentioned Andhra Pradesh i.e. Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District. He also declared Dharmavaram as his Home Town for the purpose of LTC and the same was accepted by the respondents also. Thus, the applicant had clearly Page 30 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 mentioned his domicile as Andhra Pradesh in his UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute where he first joined, which is not in dispute. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the domicile of the applicant is the present State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, this OA is squarely covered by the order in OA 230/2020, which was implemented by the respondents in its letter and spirit.
28. Further, we must note here that the status of domicile will not be on the basis of individual's declaration and it must be within the definition under the prescribed law/ rules. 'Domicile' by definition would mean the country/State/place that a person treats as his permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with. In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently. Depending on a person's circumstances, domicile has historically been based upon domicile of origin, choice and dependency. In the instant case, we are concerned with the domicile of origin and choice.
a. The domicile of origin is acquired by i the father's domicile, where the father was alive at the child's birth, ii. the mother's domicile, where the father was not alive at the child's birth, or where the child was illegitimate iii. where the parents were not known, the domicile was the place in which the child was found b. Coming to the domicile of choice, it would be acquired, i. when a child reached the age of majority, and had subsequently settled in another jurisdiction with the intention of making it their permanent home II. when a person moves away from a domicile of choice with the intention of settling in another jurisdiction, but has not yet done so, their domicile reverts to the domicile of origin until settlement in a new permanent home has taken place.
The general principles of domicile are that a person can have only one domicile at any given instant of time. It is settled in law that every individual, the Page 31 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 moment he is born, he acquires the domicile of the father, which is the domicile of origin, as explained above. The domicile of choice is acquired when on becoming major, one elects to do so and continues to hold the acquired domicile as per his will and wish. When an individual's domicile of Choice subsists the domicile of origin will recede. However, the domicile of origin being a creature of law and not being dependent on the will of the individual it revives and exists when there is no other domicile. An individual also receives at birth a domicile of origin which remains his domicile, wherever he goes, unless and until he acquires a new domicile. The domicile of origin is received by operation of law at birth and for acquisition of a domicile of choice one of the necessary conditions is the intention to remain there permanently. The domicile of origin provides the legitimacy as is required in deciding the allocation of a cadre. Mere declaration of permanent postal address by the individual will not give him domicile status of that place, district and State and will not take away the domicile status, which is provided under the law and rules, automatically. It needs certification from the appropriate authority of the Government. No doubt, on bifurcation of State, cadre allocation in proportionate has to be arranged, but it does not mean that it has to be done by misinterpreting the rules/ guidelines framed by the Government at their own convenience. As we see there is no ambiguity in para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines for consideration of domicile status of an officer. As referred to above, there cannot be any iota of doubt that the domicile of the applicant is Dharmavaram Village, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. The contention of the respondents that All India Service officers cannot choose a place of their choice is not tenable in the teeth of the guidelines framed by themselves for allocation of the cadre between the two States post bifurcation of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.
Page 32 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
29. It is well settled law that the rules framed by the competent authority are meant to be followed, but not to be violated. The very object and purpose of framing the approved guidelines, which were accepted by the 1st respondent Government of India, is to ensure fair and equitable allocation of AIS officers borne on the undivided cadre of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. It is clearly stated in the impugned at clause (2) that distribution of AIS officers of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh cadre has been done on the basis of the uniform yardstick i.e. allocation guidelines. Therefore, it is the legitimate expectation of the stakeholders like the applicant that the respondents, being model employer, would follow the approved guidelines, rather than violating their own guidelines. It is stated in the impugned order that the Committee had noted that the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 03.01.2024 has clearly observed that the representations of the officers are to be considered strictly as per the approved guidelines and any deviation thereof would not only be discriminatory to other AIS officers, but also will be in clear violation of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the Khandekar Committee, having noted the above, did not consider the case of the applicant in proper perspective, strictly in accordance with the approved guidelines. The respondents themselves admitted that the domicile status of an officer has to be determined based on the information in the UPSC Dossier/Training Institute, where the officer first joined and it is also admitted that the applicant had given his domicile of Andhra Pradesh in the UPSC Dossier/Training Institute, nevertheless, the respondents have, admittedly, determined the domicile status of the applicant taking the permanent postal address of Ranga Reddy District given by the applicant for postal communication, while ignorning the information in UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute, which has precedence in the order of priority.
Page 33 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
30. Further, as observed by this Tribunal in the above referred case in OA No. 230/2020, the Advisory Committee, by way of approved guidelines, first and foremost emphasized to consider the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training institute, where the officer joined for the first time and only in the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per parameters laid to be followed in their descending order of priority. That means, the succeeding information referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of Para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines is to be referred to only when the preceding information is not available. In the instant case, the applicant mentioned Ranga Reddy district as a permanent postal address in order to ensure delivery of communication from UPSC, but this information would not determine the domicile of the applicant because in the UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute, he had clearly mentioned Vizianagaram District, which falls in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, as his domicile and when this information is available, the succeeding information ought not to have been considered for determining the domicile of the applicant. Thus, the domicile of the applicant is clearly established as the then undivided State of Andhra Pradesh as well as the successor State of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation, but not the State of Telangana. It is worth reiterating that, para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines is very much clear that the domicile of an officer would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institute where the officer joined for the first time and only in the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per the information contained in clauses (i) to (v) of para 5.1.3 in their descending order of priority. Though the information vis-a-vis the domicile of the applicant is very much available in the UPSC Dossier/ Training Institute, which is evident from the record referred to above and which is not disputed by the respondents, the respondents have erroneously ignored the same and taken the criteria mentioned in clause (i) of para 5.1.3 for determination of the Page 34 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 domicile of the applicant as State of Telangana, thereby, he has been deprived of allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is his Home State. Therefore, the reasoning given by the respondents in the impugned orders dt. 09.10.2024 for allocation of the applicant to the State of Telangana on the basis of the permanent address of Ranga Reddy District given by him, in the DAF and taking the said mere postal address as the first criteria for determination of domicile is totally illogical and unsustainable in the eyes of law and, thereby, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is entitled for re-allocation to the cadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
31. As discussed above, it is observed on the face of record that,
(a) The Pratyush Sinha committee committed an error in considering the succeeding information referred to in Clauses (i) to (v) of Parar 5.1.3 of the Approved Guidelines, rather than considering the preceding information, which was already available. Thus, their recommendations fail to pass the test of law.
(b) The Khandekar Committee, later constituted to address the legal issues and grievances raised by the officers like the applicant, simply carried forward the error made by the Prathush Sinha Committee, and thus, its recommendation also fails to pass the test of law.
(c) The DOPT, being the cadre controlling authority of the All-India service officers & grievance redressal authority, became a silent spectator and accepted the erroneous recommendations made by the said Committees and thus, failed to address the grievance of the applicant on legally valid grounds.
32. In the circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 38, cited by the respondents, is not of much assistance to the respondents in view of the fact that the very re-allocation of the AIS cadre of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh necessitated pursuant of the Page 35 of 37 OA 020/01616/2024 bifurcation of the undivided State into two States i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and the applicant is only seeking re-allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the approved guidelines. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Avinash Mohanty & Ors, (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 256 in support of his contention that the applicant deserves fair and equitable treatment in tune with the approved guidelines in the matter of re- allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh. We have perused the said judgment and the relevant observations made therein are extracted as under:
―20. Xxx xxxx A member appointed to the All-India Service has no right to be allocated to a particular State cadre or Joint Cadre, but he has a right to a fair and equitable treatment in the matter of allocation under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
26. In our view, complexity of a decision making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing the relevant material before the Court.
27. As has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212] (at 277 in Para 118):
"118. The constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the rule of law. However, its reach is limited because its primary concern is not with the content of the law but with its enforcement and application. The rule of law is satisfied when laws are applied or enforced equally, that is, even-handedly, free of bias and without irrational distinction. The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents distinctions that are not properly justified. Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-case basis."
33. In the result, the OA succeeds. The impugned orders, dt. 09.10.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Respondent No.1 is directed to re-allocate the applicant to the cadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh as an Insider, based on his domicile of Andhra Pradesh and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the applicant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, Respondents 2 & 3 are directed to take consequential action forthwith to comply with the directions, on receipt of the orders from the 1st Respondent.
Page 36 of 37
OA 020/01616/2024
34. With the above directions, the OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member (J)
/evr/
Page 37 of 37