Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
A Vani Prasad Ias vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 3 April, 2025
OA 21/01613/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.021/001613 of 2024
Reserved on: 04.03.2025
Pronounced on: 03.04.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
Smt. A. Vani Prasad, IAS,
W/o. A. Krishna Prasad, Aged 57 years,
Occ: Principal Secretary,
Youth Affairs, Tourism, Culture & Sports,
Government of Telangana, BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad - 500 022,
R/o. OS-3, Kundanbagh, Officers Quarters,
Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad)
Vs
1. Union of India, Rep. by
The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training ,
(All India Services -IAS),
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Single Member Committee Rep. by
Shri Deepak Khandekar, through Order
No. 22012/04/2024-AIS.I, dated 21.03.2024
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The State of Telangana Rep. by its
Chief Secretary, BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings,
Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG
Mr. B. Rajeshwar Reddy, GP for AP,
Mrs. S. Anuratha, GP for TG)
1
OA 21/01613/2024
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant sought the following relief in the OA:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the approved guidelines circulated vide proceedings dated 22.08.2014 and the Order No. 22012/04/2024-AIS-I/1 dated 09.10.2024 along with Letter No. 22012/04/2024-AIS-I/I1 dated 09.10.2024 and set aside and quash the said Order and letter dated 09.10.2024 and consequently, direct the respondents to accept the domicile of the applicant as Telangana in terms of the said guidelines and accordingly grant the consequential benefit of allocation of the applicant to the cadre of Telangana State and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that the applicant was selected as Deputy Collector (Group I cadre) in the year 1990 through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short APPSC) and while working as such, she was promoted to the All India Services (for short AIS) in the year 1995 in the erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh cadre.
3. The contention of the applicant is that she has been living in Hyderabad since her childhood and she had her education from LKG to Post Graduation in Hyderabad and therefore, she has to be considered as a native of Hyderabad. She also furnished her permanent address as Hyderabad in the application for All India Service Examination - 1990 conducted by the UPSC and she was selected for Indian Revenue Service. In all her applications, she gave the permanent as well as postal address as Hyderabad. She is married to a Group 'A' officer recruited through UPSC and working in Central Engineering Services (Roads), under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and he is at present working in Hyderabad. Her children, who are twins, aged 16 years, are born in Hyderabad and studying in Hyderabad.
2
OA 21/01613/2024
4. It is stated that by the applicant that when the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated w.e.f. 02.06.2014, she was working as Commissioner, BC Welfare, Government of combined State of Andhra Pradesh. After bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, 1st respondent Union of India constituted a Committee headed by Shri Pratyush Sinha, IAS (Retd) vide notification dt. 28.03.2014 for recommending the guidelines for allocation of Officers belonging to All India Services, who are borne on the cadre of erstwhile combined State and the guidelines framed by the said Committee were approved by the Union of India. As per para 5.1.2 of the approved guidelines, a list of officers has to be prepared category-wise i.e. UR, OBC, SC and ST for the two successor States and for such an exercise to be conducted, one of the important parameters is the 'domicile' status for Regular Recruit Insider and Pomotee Quota Officers and the officers having their domicile in residuary AP and Telangana would be put provisionally in the two States respectively. As per para 5.1.3, the 'domicile' status would be determined as per the information contained in the UPSC dossiers/ Training Institutes, where the officer joined for the first time, and in the absence of such information, the basis of determination would be as per the information mentioned in clauses (i) to (v) in their descending order of priority and the succeeding information is to be referred to only when the preceding information is not available. It is the contention of the applicant that at the time of intimating the DOPT about the domicile status of the promotee officers, who are initially recruited through APPSC, instead of furnishing the names with the relevant data, the erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh has circulated a proforma vide letter dt. 22.04.2014, incorporating a column in respect of 'Place of Birth'. Upon the provisional allocation of the IAS officers borne on the cadre 3 OA 21/01613/2024 of undivided State of Andhra Pradesh vide the 1st respondent notification dt. 28.03.2014, the applicant submitted representation on 09.05.2014 with a request to allot her to the Telangana State cadre. The applicant also submitted representations on 31.05.2014, 04.06.2024 on coming to know that the State Government deleted her name from the earlier list of 51 officers, who are shown as natives of Telangana State on the basis of 'Place of Birth' and reiterating that Hyderabad is her home town. However, the 1st respondent issued provisional list of allocation vide proceedings dt. 22.08.2014, wherein her name was shown at Sl. No. 11 in the list of officers borne on the cadre of Andhra Pradesh. However, considering the representations of the applicant, the 1 st respondent allowed the applicant to work in Telangana vide Notification dt. 26.12.2014 and she was relieved by the Govt of Andhra Pradesh, thereby she reported to the Government of Telangana on 05.01.2015.
5. While the applicant is working in Telangana, the 1 st respondent issued an order dt. 05.03.2015, wherein, her name is shown at Sl. No. 68 among the list of officers allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, she earlier filed OA No. 348 of 2015 and the said OA was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dt. 29.03.2016, by quashing and setting aside the allocation order dt. 05.03.2015, inter alia, following the order and judgment in OA No. 1241 of 2014, by directing the respondents to treat the applicant as an All India Service officer of the State of Telangana cadre. The Union of India filed WP No. 7263 of 2017, assailing the said order and also the orders including the order in OA No. 1241 of 2014. Initially, the Hon'ble High Court decided WP No. 4938 of 2017 on 10.01.2023 setting aside the order of this Tribunal in WP No. 1241 of 2014 and subsequently, WP No.7263 of 2017, pertaining to this applicant, was decided vide common order dt. 03.01.2024 in WP No. 5896 of 2017 & Batch. Pursuant 4 OA 21/01613/2024 to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant submitted a detailed representation on 04.04.2024 and she also produced evidence before the Committee on 20.05.2024 in support of her claim of domicile of Telangana in terms of the guidelines. However, the impugned order dt. 09.10.2024 has been mechanically passed rejecting her claim for allocation to the State of Telangana and to allocate her to the Telangana Cadre. Consequently, another letter was addressed by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent on 09.10.2024, conveying that the applicant stands relieved from the State Government of Telangana with immediate effect in order to join the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Questioning the same, the applicant filed this OA.
6. Upon notices, the respondents appeared through their respective counsels and a counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India, wherein, the facts relating to the initial allocation of the applicant to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dt. 05.03.2015; the said allocation being challenged by the applicant before this Tribunal in OA No. 348/2015, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dt. 29.03.2016, by quashing and setting aside the allocation order dt. 05.03.2015; filing of WP No. 7263/2017 against the said order of this Tribunal and the said Writ Petition being disposed of on 03.01.2024 have been reiterated by the respondents. It is stated by the respondents that in compliance with the above order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Department 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 of erstwhile State/ Cadre of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana dt. 03.01.2024. 5
OA 21/01613/2024 Simultaneously, DOPT vide letter dt. 21.03.2024 requested the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to seek representations from the concerned officers from both the States and forward the same to the DOPT and accordingly, representations were sought and were forwarded by the respectives States. The applicant's representation was also forwarded by the State of Telangana vide letter dt. 10.04.2024 and the said representation was placed before the Committee. The Committee provided opportunity to the applicant to appear before it on 20.05.2024. The Committee submitted its report on 16.07.2024 after considering the representations/ submissions of the applicant.
7. It is stated by the respondents that, the Khandekar Committee noted that the applicant had made representations to the Pratyush Sinha Committee to treat her domicile as State of Telangana and the Pratyush Sinha Committee in its meeting held on 02.09.2014, 15.09.2014, 04.11.2014 and 19.01.2015 considered the representations/ request of the applicant, but did not accept the same. The Khandekar Commtitee further noted that the applicant has misconstrued the proceedings of Pratyush Sinha Committee in saying that the said Committee as well as the the Chief Secretaries of both the States admitted the mistake made regarding her domicile and that the Pratyush Sinha Committee in its meeting held on 19.01.2015 had only speculated the contention of the Chief Secretaries and not accepted the request of the applicant. The Khandekar Committee noted that the allocation of the applicant was done on the basis of domicile information provided by the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh, which clearly stated that her domicile is Andhra Pradesh. The distribution of promotee officers of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh cadre has been done on the basis of the uniform yardstick i.e. domicile information furnished by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, which has been applied to all promotee officers uniformly. It is further 6 OA 21/01613/2024 stated that the Khandekar Committee also noted that the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 03.01.2024 has clearly observed that the representation of the officers are to be reconsidered strictly as per the guidelines framed on the basis of Pratyush Sinha Committee recommendations and any deviation will not only be discriminatory to other AIS officers of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh cadre, but also will be in clear violation of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the applicant's allocation has been done on the basis of material facts and in line with the uniform yardstick applicable to all promotee officers. The Khandekar Committee observed that the applicant could not substantiate her claim of Telangana as her domicile and therefore, the Committee has recommended to reject the claim of the applicant to consider her domicile of Telangana cadre and allocate her to the cadre of Telangana and the competnet authority accepted the said recommendation of the Khandekar Commitrteew and accordingly, issued Speaking Order dt. 09.10.2024 to the applicant.
8. 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 (1994) 6 SCC 38. 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 of the said officer to the succdessor State of Andhra Pradesh, which was done in accordance 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 7 OA 21/01613/2024 challenged before the Hon'ble High Court vide WP No. 28738/2024 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.
9. The applicant filed rejoinder, inter alia, stating that the guidelines framed by the Committee were not fairly and uniformly implemented. When her domicile was erroneously shown as Guntur and she was allotted to AP Cadre vide notification dt. 28.03.2014, she gave representation to the Secretary, DOPT, Chairman of the Committee as well as the Chief Secretaries of both the States and on considering the same, within a period of six months, she was allotted to work in Telangana till a final decision on allotment of the cadre is taken by the Committee. On the point of domicile, the applicant states that evidence of her studies, record of address in APPSC records, UPSC correspondence, as well as in the service book opened at the time of her joining in service in 1990 have been submitted multiple times to DOPT and the Committees constituted by it. The DOPT/ Khandekhar Committee ought to have examined the evidence put forth by her or got its veracity checked by themselves. Her case pertains to Cadre allocation of Promoted Officer in a State bifurcation scenario as per the guidelines stipulated by Pratyush Sinha Committee and there can be no confusion with cadre allocation of a Direct recruit officer at the time of joining All India Service.
10. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the re- spondents and perused the material on record and the judgments cited by both sides.
8
OA 21/01613/2024
11. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the domicile of the applicant is Hyderabad, Telangana State as per para 5.1.3 of the approved guidelines and the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to that effect and therefore, she has to be allocated to the State of Telangana instead of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel further argued that taking 'birth place' as the criteria to determine domi- cile of the applicant is erroneous and is not in consonance with the approved guidelines. The information furnished by the State Government on the point of domicile to the DOPT is not correct and the action of the 1st respondent and the Khandekar Committee on the mere information furnished by the State Govern- ment, without considering the information furnished by the applicant is contrary to law and their own approved guidelines. Further, when the respondents have considered 'Outsiders' to allocate to the State of Telangana, their domicile has been taken as per the Presidential Order under Article 371(D) of the Constitution, whereas, the same principle has not been followed in the case of the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have not considered the hardship caused to the applicant due to her allocation to the cadre of the succes- sor State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the ap- plicant is entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana and the impugned or- der is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 7263/2017, the Department vide order dt. 21.03.2024, constituted a Single Member Committee comprising Shri Deepak Khandekar, IAS (Retd) for reconsideration of final allocation of AIS officers of erstwhile State/ Cadre of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana dt. 03.01.2024 9 OA 21/01613/2024 and the representations from the concerned officers from both the States were also sought. The applicant's representation was also placed before the said Committee and the Committee provided opportunity to the applicant to appear before it on 20.05.2024 and thereafter, the Committee submitted report on 16.07.2024 after considering the representations/ submissions of the applicant. The Khandekar Committee noted that the allocation of the applicant was done on the basis of domicile information provided by the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh, which clearly stated that her domicile is Andhra Pradesh and the distribution of promotee officers of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh cadre has been done on the basis domicile information furnished by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, which has been applied to all promoted officers uniformly. It is further argued that the Khandekar Committee has recommended to reject the claim of the applicant to consider her domicile of Telangana cadre and to allocate her to the cadre of Telangana and the competnet authority accepted the said recommendation of the Khandekar Commitrtee and accordingly, issued Speaking Order dt. 09.10.2024 to the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that, there is no illegality nor there is any violation of the approved guidelines or any other rules on the subject in allocating the applicant to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The case of the applicant does not come under the purport of para 5.1.3 of the guidelines and that the case of the applicant falls under Para 4 of the approved guidelines, which deals with the allocation of Promotee Officers and as there are excess officers in the ratio of 40:60, the applicant has been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the objection of the applicant on the allocation of the officers, who were born in different States, to the cadre of the State of Telangana is not tenable. In the Promotees' cadre, out of the four officers, who were born outside the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, two officers each have 10 OA 21/01613/2024 been allocated to both the successor States to maintain balance. Further, it is not disputed by the applicant that allocation of cadre between the two successor States has been done in 60:40 ratio. There are many other officers, who claimed their domicile at Hyderabad by virtue of Presidential orders issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution or by virtue of their birth in the region falling within the State of Telangana, and have been allocated to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to para 4 of the guidelines of the Pratyush Sinha Committee and the ratio to be considered for allocation of cadres between the two States, submitted that the excess officers in one successor State would be allocated to the otheer successor State viz., the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana, as the case may be, as otherwise, one of the successor States would be under shortfall of officers.
13. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the principle adopted for allocation is also guided by the guidelines of Pratyush Sinha Commttee and the action of the respondents is within the ambit of the said guidelines. Learned counsel further argued that, though the applicant has relied upon the letter of the Chief Secretary dt. 27.05.2014, the same has been forwarded as requested for by Respondent No.1 providing the requisite data in respect of the directly recruited Insiders and the promoted officers in the Tabular form, wherein details have been given after receipt of the information from the Member of the Service, and with the availbale information in respect of those officers from whom information was not received. When a detailed chart has been prepared, the applicant has not challenged the very letter before any court of law or authority nor she is disputing the same and the allocation of the cadre of the Promotee Officers is based on the said information provided by the Chief Secretary in the letter dated 27.05.2014. Therefore, the case of the applicant has 11 OA 21/01613/2024 been rightly re-examined and considered for allocation to the cadre of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh, rejecting her request to allocate her to the State of Telangana. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant having taken oath that she will serve the public, by virtue of this allocation, she got an opportunity to serve at her birth place. Therefore, the applicant has not made out any case on merits and the same has to be rejecrted. If at all the hardship of the applicant, as claimed by her, has to be considered, then all the officers who have accepted their liability under the service exigencies on bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, would also have hardship and it would amount to discrimination to those officers who have already accepted the cadre, as allocated by the 1st respondent. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
14. Points to be considered for adjudication of the case of the applicant are as under:
(i) The case of the applicant, being a promotee All India Service officer, comes under para 4 of the approved guidelines, which reads as under:
"PROMOTION QUOTA (PQ)
4. The existing „in position‟ strength against the promotion quota would be divided between the two successor States in the ratio in which the „promotion quota‟ cadre strength of the undivided state has been allocated to the two States. The number of officers to be allocated to the two successor States would thus be determined. Thereafter, based on their domicile status as intimated by the State Government, a list of officers would be prepared for the two successor States. The officers having their domicile in residual Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would be put provisionally in the two States respectively. If there is an excess of officers in any successor State in comparison to the number of officers to be al- located to that successor State, the number of officers in excess would be moved to the other successor State so as to bring about a balance. The shifting of of- ficers would be done based on a roster whose modalities have been described later."
On a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the domicile status of a promoted officer is determined on the basis of the information furnished by the 12 OA 21/01613/2024 State Government on receipt of the same from the Members of Service in writ- ing. Accordingly, decision has been taken following para 4 of the guidelines in the matter of domicile. Further, the officers are in excess in the State of Telanga- na and therefore, the applicant has been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of her domicile on birth, as intimated by the State Government to 1 st respondent. It is also to be noted that the applicant's case does not come under para 5.1.3 of the guidelines. As contended by the respondents and as per the rec- ord, the birth place of the applicant as well as of her father is Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, but the family stayed in Telangana and she had her education in Hyder- abad, Telangana State. But, that alone would not confer on her domicile of Tel- angana as per the approved guidelines.
(ii) We have gone through the information provided in Tabular format in detail by the then Chief Secretary of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh in Annex- ure III to the letter dt. 27.05.2014 along with the Report submitted by the Khandekar Committee. On a perusal of the information, it is seen that, in total, 103 Members of Service under Promotee officers quota were considered for al- location of cadre.
(iii) On the issue of allocation of cadre to the promotee officers on bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh in the ratio of 40 (Telangana State) : 60 (Successor State of Andhra Pradesh), even their domicile under Article 371D of the Constitution is shown as per guidelines, as claimed by the applicant;
(iv) On perusal of the Annexure III to the letter dt. 27.05.2014, it is seen that:
(a) Firstly, the officers, whose domicile is the State of Telangana by virtue of birth and even as per the Article 371D, were allocated to Telangana.13
OA 21/01613/2024
(b) Secondly, the officers, whose domicile is the successor State of Andhra Pradesh, by virtue of their birth, or the birth of their father or their school education, though their domicile is Hyderabad (Telangana) under Article 371(D), were allocated to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh.
(c) Thirdly, four officers under Outsiders quota have been equally allocated to both the States.
(v) The below tabulated details are drawn from the information furnished by the then Chief Secretary to the combined State of Andhra Pradesh to the 1 st Re- spondent vide letter, dt. 27.05.2014, to show the AIS officers allocated to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh along with the applicant and also the Outsider AIS officers, who have been allocated to both the successor States. Name of Mos Place of birth Domicile as Address of Place of The Dis- The part in as furnished per Presiden- Educational Birth of trict of which Domicile by the MoS tial order Institution father of Domicile District i.e. Tel-
under Art. (Matricu- MoS as fur- angana or (Re-
371-(D) lation) nished by sidual) Andhra
the MoS Pradesh
Smt. A Vani Guntur Hyderabad Hyderabad Guntur Guntur Andhra Pradesh
Prasad
Smt. K. Sunitha Visakha- Hyderabad Hyderabad Krishna Visakha- Andhra Pradesh
patnam patnam
Dr. (Smt.) Vani Vijayawada Hyderabad Hyderabad Tadipatri, Krishna Andhra Pradesh
Mohan Anantapur
Sri B. Sreedhar Kurnool Kunool/ Hyderabad Kadapa Kurnool Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor/
Hyderabad
Dr. P. Lasxmi Ongole, Hyderabad Hyderabad Indukurpet Prakasam Andhra Pradesh
narasimha Prakasam Nellore Dist
District
V. Karuna New Delhi New Delhi Visakha- Chennai - Visakha Andhra Pradesh
Visakha- patnam (Erstwhile patnam
patnam undivided
AP)
Smt. G. Rekha West Goda- Hyderabad Hyderabad East Goda- West Go- Andhra Pradesh
Rani vari vari davari
Smt. M. Krishna Dis- Kolkata, Kolkata, Hyderabad Krishna Andhra Pradesh
Prashanti trict West Bengal West Bengal
Name of MoS Place of Domicile as Address of Place of The District The part in
birth as per Presiden- Educational Birth of of Domicile which Domi-
furnished tial order Institution father of cile District
by the under Art. (Matricu- MoS as fur- i.e. Telangana
lation) or (Residual)
MoS 371-(D) nished by
Andhra Pra-
the Mos desh
Anita Ramachan- Kerala Hyderabad Hyderabad Kerala Hyderabad Telangana
14
OA 21/01613/2024
dran
P A Shobha Bangalore Bangalore Bangalore Chittoor Chittoor Andhra
Dist Pradesh
Parvathi Subram- Coimba- Hyderabad Hyderabad Kerala Hyderabad Telangana
nian tore
Smt. Y.V. Anuradha Orissa Srikakulam; Viziana- Srikakulam Srikakulam Andhra
Viziana- garam Pradesh
garam
15. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(a) It is to be noted that the case of the applicant, being a promotee to the AIS,
falls within para 4 of the approved guidelines, as extracted supra, as per which, the domicile status of the applicant was determined based on the information furnished by the State Government. It is not in dispute that the applicant's domicile was intimated to the Committee by the State Government as Andhra Pradesh. Furthermore, as there is an excess of officers in the successor State of Telangana in comparison to the number of officers to be allocated to it, the applicant has been allocated to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh, so as to maintain balance. It is also to be noted that the applicant has not challenged para 4 of the approved guidelines. Though the learned counsel for the applicant is strongly harping on the point that the applicant's domicile is erroneously considered as Andhra Pradesh, as per para 5.1.3 of the guidelines, this alone is not the determining factor in the case of the applicant. By virtue of the birth place of the applicant as well as that of her father, the applicant is a native of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. This is the first factor to be considered under the domicile status.
(b) Further, as seen from the list of Promoted IAS Officers of Andhra Pradesh, in respect of the officers who come from other States and stayed in Telangana region, the same ratio has been applied. In the ratio of 40: 60, cadre allocation has been made between the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that Outsiders have to be sent to the State of 15 OA 21/01613/2024 Andhra Pradesh and she has to be retained in the State of Telangana is not ac- ceptable, as the outsider officers have been equally distributed between both the States. The stand of the applicant is totally contradictory to the guidelines. None of the Members of the Service, who hail from the region of Andhra Pradesh, ei- ther by virtue of their birth or their father's birth, has been allocated to the cadre of Telangana.
(c ) As seen from Annexure III to the letter of the Chief Secretary, dt. 27.05.2014, 103 Promoted IAS officers of Andhra Pradesh have been considered for allocation, following the approved guidelines. In the said list of Promoted IAS officers, applicant's name is at No. 21. Her place of birth and father's place of birth, as furnished by the MOS, is Guntur and therefore, the District of Domi- cile is shown as Guntur, which falls within the residual Andhra Pradesh. There are also other promotee IAS officers, who were born in the region, falling in the residual State of Andhra Pradesh and had their education in Hyderabad and whose domicile is Hyderabad as per the Presidential Orders under Article 371-D, yet they were allocated to the cadre of Andhra Pradesh.
16. OBSERVATIONS OF THE BENCH
(i) The applicant, having accepted the service with all India service liability, is fully aware that when the officers are in excess, then the ratio has to be fol- lowed to balance the allocation of cadre by Respondent No.1 and the same is not in contravention of the Prayush Sinha Committee guidelines. It is to be noted that the action of Respondent No.1 is in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court to re-examine the issue and consider the claim of the Mem- bers of the Service and while maintaining the ratio of 40:60, when the officers are in excess, in order to balance the same, Respondent No.1 has taken the right 16 OA 21/01613/2024 decision, taking into consideration either the place of birth of the Member of the Service or that of his/her father in respect of the officers, who hail from the unit- ed State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition, filed by the applicant in the earlier round of litigation, has been fully complied with.
(ii) In so far as the claim of the applicant about the hardship she would face, it is to be noted that the applicant is left with less than two years of service and, under the said bifurcation, she has an opportunity to serve the public in her na- tive State and she is under the obligation and liability to serve anywhere, as may be ordered by the Respondent No.1. By virtue of our interference in the earlier round of litigation, the applicant has been retained in Telangana for almost 10 years. As such, now, we do not find any hardship that will be caused to the ap- plicant by virtue of the order impugned in the OA for her allotment to the cadre of Andhra Pradesh. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, if only her hardship has to be considered and her request is accepted, then others who have not only obeyed the allocation, but also joined to serve the allocated cadre as ordered on the basis of their domicile status on the basis of the birth of the officer or that of his/her father, would be discriminated against and would create unrest among those officers.
(iii) It is to be noted that the applicant herself admitted that her case has to be considered within the parameters of the guidelines framed by the Pratyush Sinha Committee. In fact, her case has been considered following para 4 of the said guidelines of the said Committee. The applicant has been allocated along with others and she is not the only officer, who has been allocated to the AP cadre.
(iv) In regard to the applicant's claim that other officers who were born outside 17 OA 21/01613/2024 the State of Andhra Pradesh were allotted to the State of Telangana, it is to be noted that out of four officers, who are Outsiders, two officers each were allocat- ed to both the States. Therefore, there is no malafide and there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents vis-à-vis the allocation of the appli- cant to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the allegations made by the applicant in the matter of cadre allocation against Respondent No.2 are base- less.
(v) The method adopted by the respondents as per the Pratyush Sinha guidelines in the decision making process to meet the requirements to balance the allocation in the ratio is justified. By virtue of the birth of the applicant as well as her father's birth, the applicant is a native of Guntur, which falls in the successor State of Andhra Pradesh and her home State is the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. It is also to be noted that the reasons for bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh are also well known to the applicant.
(vi) It is settled proposition of law that an officer, particularly from the All In- dia Service, cadre cannot claim, as a matter of right, allocation to a particular State of his/her choice or to his/her home State and allotment of cadre is an incidence of service and a Member of the All India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav. Even the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana dismissed the WP 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 of the said officer to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was done in compliance with Pratyush Sinha Committee guidelines. The State of Andhra Pradesh will be put to inconvenience if the of- 18
OA 21/01613/2024 ficers allocated to that State wish to remain in the State of Telangana. CONCLUSION:
17. In view of the above, our interference in the administrative decision of Respondent No.1 in the instant case would result in unnecessary expansion of the scope of judicial review and the same would also result in discrimination to those Members of Service, who have accepted the allocation of cadre in public interest. The definition of hardship would have to be considered in larger public interest and not with any individual's concern in the matter of policy for allocation of cadre on bifurcation of a State. Having represented and appeared before the Khandekar Committee, constituted after the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the earlier round of litigaiton, raising objection on formation of the Single Member Committee is an afterthought. However, on re-examination and re-consideration of all the points raised by the applicant following the Prayush Sinha Guidelines, the applicant and other Members of Service have been re- allocated to the respective successor States. The applicant and other Members of Service owe responsibility to serve the public and the applicant has never denied this fact. More particularly, after bifurcation, it is necessary that the officers have to be distributed between the two successor States as per the policy/ guidelines on the subject and if officers are in excess in one State, they have to be adjusted. Needless to mention, all the Officers belonging to the All India Services were allocated to the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh. But, after bifurcation, they have to serve in the interest of the respective States. Though the respondents contend that there are excess officers, the same has not been disputed by the applicant and therefore, adjustment has to be done in public interest and one must go as per the allocation order.
19
OA 21/01613/2024
18. The applicant has referred to the order of this Bench in OA No. 1616 of 2014. In the said case, the applicant is a direct recruit IAS Officer and the birth place of the applicant therein and that of his father i.e. Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, as declared by the applicant in the UPSC Dossiers/ Training In- stitute, was as prime factor for consideration of his domicile status, yet, his dom- icile status was not considered properly. However, in the present OA, on the point of domicile of those officers who are in excess, their birth place has been considered while allocating the cadre. Further, in similar circumstances, this Tribunal adjudicated OA No. 230/2020 and passed order dt. 09.11.2020, taking into consideration the birth place of the applicant therein and her father as the domicile of the applicant therein and the said Order of this Tribunal has been implemented. Relevant observations vis-a-vis the domicile of the applicant therein are extracted hereunder:
"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 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. xxxxx "
19. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Telangana & Anr v. B. Subba Rayudu & Others, (2022) 16 SCC 37, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and we are of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20
OA 21/01613/2024
20. As discussed above, it is observed that, on the face of record that, the Pratyush Sinha Committee recommendation and the Khandekar Committee recommendation vis-a-vis the applicant are as per the agreed policy guidelines and, accordingly, the impunged order issued by the DOPT succeeds in passing the test of judicial scrutiny.
21. In view of the above, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for our interference. Therefore, the OA is devoid merit and is, accord- ingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member(A) Member(J)
/evr/
21