Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Dr K Anandh vs M/O Environment And Forests on 3 July, 2024
1 OA No. 303/2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00303/2012
Dated this, the 3rd day of July, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
Dr. K. Anandh,
S/o M. Kannapiran,
Divisional Forest Officer,
Marwah Forest Division, Kishtwar,
Jammu & Kashmir
14, South Mada Vilagam,
Tiruvarur. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
CGO Complex,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2.Director General (Forests) and Special Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
CGO Complex,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3.The Under Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
CGO Complex,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2 OA No. 303/2012
4. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
5.State of Tamil Nadu
rep by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
6.Mrs. R. Padmawathe, IFS,
Divisional Forest Officer,
Tirupattur,
Tamil Nadu.
7.Mrs. K.Geethanjali, IFS,
Divisional Forest Officer,
Villupuram,
Tamil Nadu. .. Respondents
By Advocates Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy for R.1 to 4
Mr. K.H. Ravikumar for R.5
3 OA No. 303/2012
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member(A) The relief sought by the applicant in the OA is as follows:
"to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently quash the cadre allotment dated 2nd May 2005 issued by the 3rd respondent in so far as it allots the applicant to Jammu & Kashmir and declare that the applicant is entitled to be allocated to the Tamil Nadu Cadre of the Indian Forest Service and to direct the respondent to allot the applicant to the Tamil Nadu Cadre for the year 2004, if necessary by creating a supernumerary post in the said cadre and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are summarised below:
The applicant participated in the 2003 Indian Forest Service (IFS) Examination as a candidate from Tamil Nadu, under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. He secured the 10th rank, in the overall merit list, and was the top-ranked candidate from Tamil Nadu. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) announced the results in April, 2004, but the cadre allocation for the 2004 batch was notified a year later, in April, 2005. Upon allocation, the applicant was assigned to the Jammu & Kashmir cadre, having been categorized as a General Category candidate, despite his OBC status. He accepted this allocation under the assumption that there was no insider vacancy 4 OA No. 303/2012 available in the Tamil Nadu Cadre. Subsequently, he came to know, from his batch colleagues that there were irregularities and favouritism in the cadre allocation process. He also submits that the established rules and regulations, including the 2:1 ratio of outsiders and insiders, as per the letter, dated 30.07.1984, of the 1st respondent, and the roster system, were not followed correctly. Allocation of members to various cadres of the IFS is governed by Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966. As per the said Rule, the allocation for various cadres shall be made by the 1st respondent, in consultation with the State Government concerned, in the ratio of 2:1. As per the said D.O. Letter, a 30 point continuous roster, following the cycle Outsider-
Insider-Outsider was provided, starting from the examination of 1983. This broad principle governing the allocation, on the basis of the said roster, was laid down in the letter, dated 31.05.1985. This policy was to be uniformly applied to all the reserved categories, from 1993 onwards, including OBCs. Through the Right to Information Act, the applicant obtained information on 24.10.2008, revealing that an insider vacancy existed in the Tamil Nadu cadre for the year 2004. Additionally, two insiders were allocated to the Tamil Nadu cadre in 2005, against the vacancies, of which one was the vacancy from 2004. This information indicated that both the Ministry of Forests and the Tamil Nadu Government had failed to maintain the roster correctly, rendering their actions illegal. The applicant highlighted similar cases of misallocation which had been corrected in previous years. For instance, Mr. M.R. Chawan from the 5 OA No. 303/2012 2002 batch, who belonged to the SC category, was initially allocated to the Jammu & Kashmir cadre, as a General Category candidate. Upon challenging this before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, he was reassigned to his home cadre in Karnataka. Similarly, in the 2003 batch, Mrs. M.A. Akanksha Choudhry, an OBC candidate, was initially misallocated, but, later, reassigned to her home cadre in Rajasthan, following her representation. Based on the information obtained and the precedents of corrected allocations, the applicant submitted detailed representation, dated 14.07.2010, requesting for reconsideration of his cadre allocation. However, the said representation was rejected by the third respondent, vide his order, dated 14.01.2011. Aggrieved by this rejection, the applicant has filed the OA, seeking appropriate relief.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the allocation had been made without proper consultation with the State Government and is inconsistent with the mandate under Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966. When there was a clear vacancy in the year 2004, as per the information obtained through the RTI Act, non-consideration of the applicant, who belongs to the OBC category and had secured the 10th rank in the overall merit list and was the 1st among the candidates selected from the State of Tamil Nadu, is arbitrary, discriminatory and inconsistent with the statutory rules. He also submitted that the instructions issued by the 4th respondent in the D.O. Letter, dated 30.07.1984, for maintaining the ratio of outsider-insider-outsider 6 OA No. 303/2012 in the cadre allotment of IFS officers, have not been followed from the years 1983 to 2009.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is entitled to be allotted to the home cadre as an insider, for the year 2004, being a meritorious candidate from Tamil Nadu.
5. The learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 also submitted that, as per the result of the Indian Forest Examination, 2003, the result of which was communicated by the Commission, vide their letter, dated 12.04.2004, five candidates from the OBC, bearing Roll Nos. 001313, 001347, 001555, 030461 and 030524, had qualified, without availing themselves of any relaxation/concession in the eligibility criteria, and these five applicants, inculding the applicant herein (Roll No.001313), were to be adjusted against the vacancies for General candidates. It is their contention that the vacancy for the allotment year 2004 for Tamil Nadu was earmarked for OBC Outsider.
6. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the roster is maintained for the year of examination and not on the account of the batch. The applicant took the 2003 examination, for which one outsider vacancy was available in the SC/ST category. With regard to the allegation of the applicant that cadre reallocation was done in respect of M.R. Chawan and Ms. Akanksha Chaudhary, it is submitted that, in both the cases, insider vacancies were available in Karnataka and Rajasthan cadres in 7 OA No. 303/2012 the exams for the years 2001 and 2002, respectively. As the vacancy for the allotment year 2004 for Tamil Nadu was earmarked for OBC outsider and there was no vacancy available for an insider OBC, the applicant was allotted to Jammu and Kashmir, as per the roster. Hence, it is contended that the OA is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, the 5th Respondent herein, submitted that the applicant has challenged the Cadre Allocation Policy of the Government of India. The State Government has nothing to do with the prayer of the applicant in this case, as the subject matter of the OA lies in the domain of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
8. Refuting the reply filed by Respondents 1 to 3, the applicant has filed a rejoinder stating that discrepancy has taken place in cadre allotment in violation of the insider-outsider ratio for the examination year 2003, contrary to the D.O. Letter, dated 30.07.1984, issued by the 4th respondent. Had the ratio been followed in letter and spirit, the applicant would have been allotted Tamil Nadu cadre as an insider. It is also stated by him that he has challenged only the cadre allotment and, hence, there is no misconception with regard to the year of examination and the batch year. Along with the rejoinder, the applicant has filed a copy of the Civil List of IFS Officers in the TN cadre, for the years 1968 8 OA No. 303/2012 to 2002 (Annexure A-I) and the Insider Outsider Cadre Allocation Sequence (Annexure -II).
9. Respondent No. 1, in the reply to the rejoinder filed by the applicant, has clarified that, depending on the actual filling of the insider and outsider vacancies, the ratio of 2 : 1 may change, subject to the availability of insider/outsider candidates. It is further stated that for the year 2003, in the Tamil Nadu Cadre, only one SC/ST outsider vacancy was available, and, as per the prevailing policy, at that time, one SC candidate from Uttar Pradesh was allotted the Tamil Nadu Cadre. As the applicant herein is an OBC candidate, he was not entitled to the said vacancy. The Civil List (Annexure-I of the Rejoinder) submitted by the applicant is only a directory of IFS Officers and the table in Annexure -II is prepared on the basis of the directory, but this cannot be taken as an authentic document for calculation of insider/outsider ratio for a specific cadre. Moreover, the PREFACE to the Civil List itself declares that, "The contents of this Civil List should not be taken to convey any sanction or authority in respect of the particulars given therein."
10. The applicant has further filed reply/objection affidavit to the Roster filed by the respondents, wherein it is asserted that, as per the roster record, an insider vacancy was present for the examination year 2003 and he ought to have been accommodated in the Tamil Nadu Cadre, as the outsider-insider ratio of 2:1 was not maintained during cadre allocation. It is pointed out by him that, 9 OA No. 303/2012 as per the Civil List, during the exam years between 1984 and 2002, 55 candidates were allocated to the Tamil Nadu Cadre, out of whose, only 11 insiders (20%) were insider and the remaining 44 (80%) were outsiders, as can be seen from the Table submitted. Consequently, the Outsiders to Insiders ratio turned out to be 4:1 against the legal provision for 2:1, as the cadre allocation was not done properly.
11. It is also submitted by the applicant that though the respondents have provided category-wise vacancies for the exam years 1983 upto 1993, they have not furnished the information of category-wise vacancies from the exam year 1994 onwards.
12. He has also alleged that the roster was not followed by the cadre controlling authority. The figures shown by him for the period from 1983 to 1993 add up as follows :
Exam Total Un-Reserved Reserved Total No. of Total no. of Year Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy candidates candidates per Roster allocated in Play violation of Roster Play Total 58 44 Outsider:29 14 Outsider:9 Outsider:38 Outsider:42 Insider:15 Insider:5 Insider:20 Insider:9 For the years 1994 to 2004, the figures, as calculated by the applicant, are given below :-10 OA No. 303/2012
Exam Total Un-Reserved Reserved Total No. of Total no. of Year Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy candidates candidates per Roster allocated in Play violation of Roster Play Total 16 6 Outsider:4 10 Outsider:7 Outsider:11 Outsider:8 Insider:2 Insider:3 Insider:5 Insider:6 The first table is meant to show that, in total, 38 outsiders and 20 insiders should have been allocated to this cadre. However, the cadre controlling authority, allocated 42 outsiders and 9 insiders during the said period.
Similarly, there is discrepancy for the year 1994 to 2004, as shown above.
13. The applicant has also made a point that, in violation of the cadre allocation rules, the insider vacancy for the exam year 2003 was filled in the exam year 2004. He has also given examples of the years 1997, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, wherein OBC candidates selected in open merit still got considered as OBC and were allocated to the TN cadre. Some reserved candidates (OBC/SC), though selected in open merit, were allocated against unreserved vacancies. His contention is that he could be allocated to the TN cadre, irrespective of his category, even though, being an OBC, he did not avail the reservation facility.
14. It is also stated by the applicant that the respondents have neither followed the OIO sequence nor the 200 point roster and its combination for allocation of cadre. They also did not submit the year-wise, category-wise 11 OA No. 303/2012 vacancies available for the exam years from 1994 to 2004. The applicant also pointed out that Garima Choudhary had been placed as an outsider SC in the Tamil Nadu cadre for the year 2003. However, she did not take up the post, as she joined the IRS. Hence, according to the applicant, appropriate change in the cadre allotment ought to have been made and if such a change would have been made, he would have been placed in the Tamil Nadu Cadre, as there would have been an insider vacancy. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
i. Order, dt. 12.03.2013, of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in WP 8418 of 2011, in the case of A. Periasamy, IFS, Vs. UoI, rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and ors;
ii. Order, dt. 28.11.2014, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SLP(C) No. 395/2014, in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. A. Periasamy, IFS.
He also relies upon the notification, dt. 23.01.2015, of the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change, reallocating Sh. A. Periasamy, IFS, 2006 Batch, to the Tamil Nadu Cadre from the Orissa Cadre, in parital modification of the Ministry's Notification, dt. 23.02.2007.
15. The 5th Respondent, ie., the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, has, by way of an affidavit, apprised that the applicant, Dr. K. Anandh, who had taken up the IFS Exam as a candidate from the TN State, conducted by the UPSC for the year 12 OA No. 303/2012 2004 batch, had been allotted to the J&K cadre as per the rules and regulations and the cadre allocation and the roster system followed by the GoI. Vide letter, dt. 14.01.2011, he had been informed by the GoI, that the vacancy allotted for the year 2004 for TN was earmarked for OBC outsider. As there was no vacancy available for insider OBC, he was allotted to J&K, as per the roster play. According to R-5, the prerogative of deciding the cadre, based on the set of rules, vests with the GoI.
16. A copy of the vacancy position, cadre-wise and category-wise, of I.F.S. Exam 2003/Batch 2004 has been submitted on behalf R1 to R4.
17. We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for R.1 to 4, and Mr. K.H. Ravikumar, learned counsel for R.5, at length, and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record. We have also carefully gone through the decisions relied upon by the rival parties.
18. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the applicant has any right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home state, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
19. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to look into the contents of the 4th Respondent's D.O. Letter, dated 30.07.1984, (A-I) as well as the D.O. letter, dated 31.05.1985 (A-II), since it is the contention of the 13 OA No. 303/2012 applicant that the rules and regulations with regard to cadre allocation and the roster system were not followed in his case, which violates the letter and spirit of the said two letters. According to the system laid down therein, while allocating Indian Forest Service officers to different State cadres, the Ratio of 2:1 is prescribed between outsiders and insiders in each cadre. Further, as per the DoPT letter, dated 30/31.05.1985, (A-II), addressed to the 1st Respondent, the allocation of direct recruits to the All India Services, including the Indian Forest Service, which was being made in accordance with the Limited Zonal Preferences System from the 1978 examination onwards, reverted back to the roster system, which had earlier been the system of allocation from the 1966 to the 1977 examination, with certain modifications. The following broad principles of cadre allocation, on the basis of the roster system, were laid down:-
"1. The vacancies in every cadre will be earmarked for 'outsiders' and 'insiders' in the ratio of 2:1. In order to avoid problems relating to fractions and to ensure that this ratio is maintained, over a period of time, if not during allocation, the break-up of vacancies in a cadre between 'outsiders' and 'insiders' will be calculated following the cycle of 'outsider'-'insider'-'outsider' "2. The vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be reserved in the various cadres according to the prescribed percentage. For purpose of this reservation, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be grouped together and the percentages will be added. Distribution of reserved vacancies in each cadre between 'outsiders' and 'insiders' will be done in the ratio of 2:1. This ratio will be operationalised by following a cycle 'outsider', 'insider'. 'outsider' as is done in the case of general candidates.
"3. Allocation of 'insiders', both men and women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be allocated to their home States.14 OA No. 303/2012
"4. Allocation of 'outsiders', whether they are general candidates or reserved candidates, whether they are men or women, will be according to the roster system after placing 'insiders' at their proper places on the chart as explained below, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx "iii) The 'insider' quota should then be distributed among the States and assigned to different cycles of allotment. For example, if a State gets 4 'insider' candidates, they should go to the share of the State in their respective cycles and if there are 2, 'insider' candidates from the same cycle, they should be treated as going to the State in two successive cycles and so on.
"iv) The 'outsider' candidates should be arranged in order of merit and allotted to the State cadres in cycles as described in (v) below.
"v) In the first cycle, State cadre/Joint Cadres which have not received 'insider' candidates should be given one candidate each in order of merit of 'outsider' candidates. The process should be repeated in successive cycles, each successive cycle beginning with the next successive group of States, e.g., the second cycle should begin from Group III (sic) States, the third cycle with Group III States and the fourth cycle with Group IV States and the fifth cycle again with Group I States. Occasionally, it may happen that a candidate's turn may come in such a way that he may get allocated to his own home State. When that happens, the candidate next below him should be exchanged with him.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx "vii) In the case of candidates belonging to the reserved category, such of those candidates, whose position in the merit list is such that they could have been appointed to the service even in the absence of any reservation, will be treated on par with general candidates for purposes of allotment though they will be counted against reserved candidates. In respect of other candidates belonging to the reserved category, a procedure similar to the one adopted for general candidates would be adopted. In other words, a separate chart should be prepared with similar grouping of States and similar operational details should be followed. If there is a shortfall in general 'insiders' quota, it could , however, be made up by 'insider' reserved candidates." (emphasis added)
20. These guidelines were meant to operate "while allocating the candidates appointed to the Indian Forest Service on the result of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 1984 and onwards."
15 OA No. 303/2012
21. In the instant case, the applicant took the Indian Forest Service Examination for the year 2003 as a candidate from the State of Tamil Nadu, under the OBC category, and secured the 10th rank in the overall merit list and stood 1st among the candidates selected from the State of Tamil Nadu. While allocating the cadre, the applicant was allotted Jammu & Kashmir, treating him as a General Category candidate, even though he belongs to the OBC category. It is seen that the allocation of members to various cadres of the Indian Forest Service is governed by Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 1966, under which allocation for various cadres shall be made by the 1st Respondent, in consultation with the State Government concerned. As per the policy of the 4th Respondent, in the direct recruitment to IAS/IPS/IFS, the ratio of 2:1 is prescribed between outsiders and insiders, for allocation of selected candidates to State cadres. Separate outsider-insider roster must be maintained in regard to all the reserved categories. These guidelines were to be followed "while allocating the candidates appointed to the Indian Forest Service on the result of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 1984 and onwards."
22. It is the contention of the applicant that roster maintenance with respect of the Tamil Nadu Cadre of IFS is not as per the DoPT letter to the 1st Respondent. According to him, though an insider vacancy existed in the year 2004, as per the information collected under the RTI Act, he was not allotted the Tamil Nadu Cadre. He has relied upon the order, dated 12.03.2013, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in W.P. No.8418 of 2011, in the case of A 16 OA No. 303/2012 Periasamy, IFS, Vs. M/o. Environment & Forests & ors. The grievance of the petitioner in the W.P., who belonged to the SC category, was that no insider Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidate was appointed in the home state and the insider posts were filled up by outsiders, in violation of the ratio of 2:1. The Hon'ble High Court, while allowing the W.P., observed at para 7, as follows:
"7. However, in the Notification dated 23.02.2007, while exercising the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, the Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments concerned, allocated the petitioner to Orissa State Cadre. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 2006, two vacancies arose in respect of Tamil Nadu. As per the decision of the Central Government communicated by letter dated 30.07.1984, the first vacancy has to go to SC insider and the second vacancy has to go to outsider OBC, since for the years 2002 and 2004 years of allotments, outsider candidates are appointed in the Tamil Nadu Cadre of the IFS. Instead of doing so, the respondents reversed the allotment by bringing outsider OBC candidates to Tamil Nadu which is contrary to the very policy decision of the Government and the Rules."
23. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no one will be affected if the applicant is allotted Tamil Nadu Cadre. Further, he has also raised a question that even if the applicant was appointed under unreserved category, which OBC insider candidate was appointed in the Tamil Nadu Cadre.
24. It is the contention of the respondents that the applicant, who belongs to the OBC category, has qualified the exam without availing any of the relaxation/concessions in the eligibility criteria and, hence, was to be adjusted 17 OA No. 303/2012 against the vacancy for general candidates. We have gone through the set of judgments submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Order, dt. 5th March, 2009, of the CAT Principal Bench, in Original Application No. 1340 of 2008, deals with issues of cadre allocation in very different circumstances. The OA was filed by the applicant against the change in the system of allocation of IPS officers to states. The case of Rahul Rasgotra was cited, as he had joined training after being exempted from training with the batch of 1988 of the IPS, but had been allotted his cadre before joining, with the rest of his batch. That OA was dismissed. The present case is totally different. As regards the second judgement cited by the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2009, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we do not find any similarity in the facts of the case either. The only point of relevance appears at Para 13 which states that, if someone has been wrongly extended a benefit, it cannot be a precedent for granting similar benefit to others. The conclusion therein is extracted below:-
"13. ....... The fact that someone who may be not entitled to the relief has been given relief illegally is not a ground to grant relief to a person who is not entitled to the relief."
The learned counsel for the respondents also drew our attention to the order, dt. 10.01.2023, of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, in W.P. No. 4938 of 2017, which has, in turn, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Yadav (1994 (6) SCC 38). It was held therein that a selected candidate has a right to be considered for 18 OA No. 303/2012 appointment to the IAS, but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home state. Allotment of cadre is an incidence of service. A member of an all-India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India. Observations in this regard are quoted below -
"5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. We are not inclined to agree with the same. Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules provides that the allocation of the members of the IAS to various cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 further provides that a cadre officer can be transferred from one cadre to another. When a person is appointed to an all-India Service, having various State Cadres, he has no right to claim allocation to a State of his choice or to his home State. The Central Government has no legal obligation to have options or even preferences from the officers concerned. Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules make the Central Government the sole authority to allocate the members of the service to various cadres. It is not obligatory for the Central Government to frame rules/regulations or otherwise notify "the principles of allocation" adopted by the Government as a policy. The letter dated 31.05.1985 shows that the Central Government has always been having guidelines either in the shape of "limited zonal preferences system" or "Roster System" for the exercise of its discretion under Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules. Simply because the principles of allocation called "Roster System" were not notified, it is no ground to hold that the same are non est and the Central Government cannot follow the same. In any case the "Roster System" has stood the test of time. It was operative during the years 1966 to 1977 and again it is being followed from 1985 batch onwards. The fact that the 'Roster System" is being followed in practice by the Central Government for all these years, is in itself a sufficient publication of its principles.
6. We may examine the question from another angle. A selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home State. Allotment of cadre is an incidence of service. A member of an all India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India. The principles of allocation as contained in clause (2) of letter dated 31.05.1985, wherein preference is given to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate for allocation to his home State, do not provide for reservation of appointments or posts and as such the question of testing the said principles on the anvil of Article 19 OA No. 303/2012 16(4) of the Constitution of India does not arise. It is common knowledge that the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates are normally much below in the merit list and as such are not in a position to compete with the general category candidates. The "Roster System" ensures equitable treatment to both the general candidates and the reserved categories. In compliance with the statutory requirement and in terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India 22 1/2% reserved category candidates are recruited to the IAS. Having done so both the categories are to be justly distributed amongst the States. But for the "Roster System" it would be difficult rather impossible for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates to be allocated to their home States. The principles of cadre allocation, thus, ensure equitable distribution of reserved candidates amongst all the cadres."
The Writ Petition was allowed and the order of CAT, Hyderabad Bench, passed on 29.03.2016, in OA No. 1241 of 2014, was set aside and quashed.
25. It is also seen that the above decision of the Supreme Court in UoI Vs. Rajiv Yadav has been followed in Union of India vs. Mhathung Kithan (1996 (10) SCC 562) and again in G. Srinivas Rao vs. Union of India (2011 (8) SCC
123.
26. The respondents also contended that supernumerary post cannot be created, as suggested by the applicant, to accommodate him in the Tamil Nadu cadre.
27. In its order, dt. 05.02.2010, in OA 154/2008, the Ernakulam Bench of CAT, in the case of Pramod P.P. Vs. Union of India, rep by Secretary to Ministry of Environment & Forests, has observed as follows :- 20 OA No. 303/2012
"9. The short question that comes up for consideration is whether there has been any short fall of "insider" quota as per the cycle system prescribed vide Annexure A-3 and if so, whether the applicant should be allocated to that vacancy.
10. It is admitted by both sides that in terms of the instructions contained in the Government of India Ministry of Personnel & Training letter dated 30th July, 1984 and the letter dated 30/31st May 1985, it is necessary to maintain the ratio 2:1 in the case of outsider-insider quota in the State cadre of All India Services over a period of time.
......
"14. The contention of the Counsel for the respondents is that the applicant having been enlisted in the general cadre due to her merit, she has, as an outsider been allotted to Himachal Pradesh, and the same is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Relevant Cadre Rules. They have also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 38, wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-
A selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home State. Allotment of cadre is an incidence of service.
......
"15. The above decision does not assist the respondents in the instant case, as this case deals with the entitlement to certain preference being extended to a reserved candidate who has been by virtue of merit considered. at par with a general candidate.
"16. When the choice of the applicant, on the basis of merit as a general candidate, for allotment to the Kerala cadre (as insider) could not fructify, the choice as the first OBC ought to have been made available to the applicant. It has been held in the case of Union of India. v. Satya Prakash, (2006) 4 SCC 550, as under:-
"20. If a candidate of the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class, who has been recommended by the Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard could not get his/her own preference in the merit list, he/she can opt a preference from the reserved catagory and in such process the choice of preference of the reserved category recommended by resorting to the relaxed standard will be pushed further down but shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a service/post in accordance with their preference."21 OA No. 303/2012
"17. The above being the clear law laid down by the Apex Court, the same could well be pressed into service in the instant case. The applicant is still undergoing training and as such, it may not be impossible for the Government to change the cadre. All that is required is to ascertain from the respective State Government concerned and once acceptance is given, to post the applicant to that State. In fact, it is seen from the communication vide Annexure A-11 that as many as 27 vacancies are available at Kerala itself. If there is no plausible reason for not filling up the vacancies, the Union of India could well consider the case of the applicant for Kerala Allotment as well, subject to the same being within the ratio of insider outsider, reservation percentage etc., This is left purely to the discretion of the Central Government as well as the Government of Kerala, as no vested right has been hampered of the applicant by not allotting Kerala as insider. However, so far as ignoring the preference of the applicant for a particular State by virtue of her being the first amongst OBC, as an outsider, the same is illegal and the action on the part of the respondents cannot thus be legally sustained."
x x x x
19. We have gone through the table showing particulars of directly recruited officers in IFS, Kerala Cadre from 1975 to 2006 produced by the applicant as Annexure A-9. We notice that the ratio of Outsider-Insider- Outsider prescribed vide Annexure A-3 guidelines, are not scrupulously followed. A glance at the table from the year 1991 would show that the allocation was as I-O-O-O-O-O-O-I-O-O-O-I-O-O-I-O and that when 7 General and 6 OBC were appointed, only 2 SC candidates were appointed. There is over representation of the OBC and under representation of the SC/ST. This is answered by the respondents in the reply as follows:
"9. ".......as per the present system a candidate is considered for allocation to his State as per his rank in merit list and availability of insider vacancy in that State. Allocation of outsider whether General or Reserved is according to the roster System after placing Insiders at their places. Every cadre has a running roster of vacancies which are en-marked as O-I-O, O-I-O ..... The Roster of General and Reserved candidates are maintained separately. In case of non-availability of an insider/outsider candidate in a particular year, there is no provision for carry forward of the insider/outsider vacancy. In case an insider is not available against an insider vacancy it is filled by an outsider.
"20. The applicant has pointed out that there is over representation of OBC candidates, We notice that there is merit in his contention, as out of 5 candidates allocated to Kerala from 2002 to 2006, 3 are OBCS, with 1 insider and 2 outsiders, as per. A-9. Whatever be the procedure adopted, it is seen that the ratio stipulated by the Government is not followed and that a SC candidate is not allocated the State of his choice.
"21. It is seen vide Annexure A-11 that there was no allocation during the years 1996, 97, 99and 2004 even though there were reserved vacancies during 22 OA No. 303/2012 1996, 1999 and 2004. Therefore, certain short fall in the Insider quota in the Kerala cadre is established. As per para 4(vii) of the DOPT letter dated 30/31.5.1985, if there is shortage of general insider quota it could however, be made up by Insider reserved quota.
"22. The case of the applicant is similar to the cases relied on by him. The applicant has obtained 38th rank and he was first among the reserved candidates from Kerala State. There is admittedly shortfall in the insider quota against SC quota. The State Government has expressed its no objection to the applicant being allocated to the Kerala Cadre if he is a legitimate insider candidate.
"23. In this view of the matter, in the conspectus of the facts and circumstance of the case, keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India at Annexure A-3 and following the dictum laid down by the Tribunal in identical cases cited above, we allow the O.A. We quash Annexure-A-1 and-A- 17 to the extent it allocates the applicant to the joint cadre of Manipur-Tripura of the Indian Forest Service. We declare that the applicant is entitled to be allocated to the Kerala cadre of the Indian Forest Service. We further direct the respondents to consider the applicant for allocation to Kerala Cadre of the Indian Forest Service and grant him allotment to Kerala Cadre. The IR is made absolute. No costs."
28. For establishing the facts in the present OA, we need to take a look at the RTI reply, dt. 29.07.2009, which is reproduced below :-
S.No. Question Answer
1. How many vacancies of IFS The approved Forest 2003 2004
are there in Tamilnadu Service vacancies 145 148
Government Forest
Department in the year The persons who
2003-2004? were in Service
(On 11) 141 139
2. Among them how many The direct recruitment for the
persons who had succeeded year 2003 - Nil
in the IFS exam in the year The direct recruitment for the
2003-04 were appointed? year 2004 - Nil.
3. How many persons who had The persons who were appointed
worked in the Forest through promotion
23 OA No. 303/2012
Department of Government
of Tamilnadu were 2003-5
appointed as IFS 2004-2
4. Among the persons who There is no detail with regarding
were selected for the IFS how many persons among the
service for the year 2003-04 total selected for IFS service for
of the Forest Department the year 2003-04 the persons
how many obtained from were obtained from the Central
the Central Government, government, stating that they are
stating that they are needed needed for Government
for Government of Tamilnadu.
Tamilnadu?
29. In his representation, dt 14.07.2010, to the Director General (Forests) and Special Secretary, the Applicant has made the following points:-
"It is pertinent to mention here that though the results were declared by UPSC in April 2004 the cadre allocation for our batch was notified after a lapse of one year in April 2005. This delayed allocation was only for the purpose of tinkering and tampering so that few individuals in our batch were favoured and therefore I was allocated the Jammu & Kashmir Cadre which is against the existing rules, regulations and law of the land. Further the roaster system which has to be followed was not followed in our batch in its letter and spirit.
"In 2003 batch one insider was sent to Tamil Nadu Cadre. In 2004 batch (from our batch) no insider was sent to Tamil Nadu Cadre though an insider vacancy existed. In 2005 two insiders were sent to Tamil Nadu Cadre which includes one insider vacancy which existed in 2004. If the roaster system and the regular allocation of Cadre would have been followed without favouring anybody in my batch I would have been allocated in Tamil Nadu cadre in 2004 which was filled subsequently in 2005.
........
"There has been earlier instances where officials who were allocated to some other cadre were later by administrative order were sent to their respective home cadres.
"To mention a few:
1. In 2002 batch, Mr.M.R.Chavan (Code. No. KT/217) belongs to SC category. was allocated to Jammu & Kashmir cadre consider him as General category. He filed a case in CAT Delhi. The Ministry of Environment and 24 OA No. 303/2012 forest, Govt. Of India asked him to withdraw his case and changed his cadre to Karnataka (Home Cadre) by an administrative order in 2005 after three years.
2. In 2003 batch Ms.Akansksha Chowdhry (Code.No. RJ/144) belongs to OBC category was allocated to some other cadre considering her as General category. She made a representation to Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. Of India. Her cadre was changed to Rajasthan (Home Cadre) by an administrative order.
"The above narration will clearly show that in the first instance there has been irregularities in cadre allocation in my batch (2004 batch) giving a goby to the rules, regulation, and law of the land. Further with regard to change in cadre, there have been earlier precedents. As mentioned above, there had been a vacancy existing in Tamil Nadu to which I ought to have been allocated but that has not been made to the reasons stated above and reasons best known to the authorities who have made the allocation.
"Therefore, it is humbly requested that I shall be allotted to Tamil Nadu cadre. Further there cannot be differential treatment for different persons which is against what the Constitution of India has guaranteed."
30. The Ministry of Environment & Forests (R-1) rejected the above representation, vide their letter, dt. 14th January, 2011 (A-7), stating that-
"I am directed to refer to your letter dated 14.07.2010 on the above subject and to say that your application has been considered at length. It may, however be intimated that the vacancy for the allotment year 2004 for Tamil Nadu was earmarked for OBC Outsider As there was no vacancy available for insider OBC you were allotted Jammu and Kashmir as per the roaster play. It is therefore, regretted that your request for change of Cadre from Jammu and Kashmir to Tamil Nadu cannot be agreed to at this stage."
31. As per DoPT OM, dt. 10.04.2008, (R-3), the State Govt. has to indicate the total number of vacancies to be filed through a particular examination and the Cadre Controlling Authority shall determine the vacancies including the break-up indicating UR / SC / ST / OBC / Insider / Outsider. As per the OM : -
"2. A 200-point running vacancy-based-roster showing SC/ST/OBC/UR points shall be maintained for each cadre properly and would be used for determining the vacancies of various categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR) in each cadre The accounting in this roster shall be done on the basis of actual 25 OA No. 303/2012 filling of the roster point. This roster for each of the cadres may be initialized by adjusting the recruitments done since the CSE-1994.
.......
"6. A candidate shall be allotted to his Home cadre or any other cadre, as the case may be, on the basis of his merit, preference and vacancy available at his turn in his category.
"7. The following shall be the formula for filling up of an insider vacancy belonging to a particular category for which a candidate is not available.
......
c. When no candidate is available against an Insider OBC vacancy in a Cadre, the same shall be filled up by bringing in the senior most insider officer available in the merit list of ST candidates (failing which in the merit list of SC candidates and in the merit list of the Unreserved candidates in that order) and shifting the OBC vасаnсу of the Cadre to the cadre to which the incoming officer would have normally been allotted against the available outsider vacancy in his category (failing which to the next cadre in alphabetical order in which the outsider vacancy is available).
x x x x
d. When no insider unreserved candidate is available against an Insider
Unreserved vacancy available in a Cadre but insider SC/ST/OBC candidate(s) is/are available, such senior most ST candidate (failing which such senior most SC candidate and such senior most OBC candidate in that order) shall be adjusted by shifting out the Unreserved insider vacancy to the next cadre in alphabetical order having outsider vacancy in that category and bringing in an Outsider vacancy of that category from that cadre.
32. Further, as per DoPT OM, dt. 21.04.2011, the Government reviewed the Policy, issued vide OM. No. 13011/22/2005-AIS-1, dated 10th April, 2008. Para 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy was amended as given below:-
Existing Para 9 of Cadre Amended Para 9 of Cadre
Allocation Policy Allocation Policy
A reserved category candidate Notwithstanding what has been
selected on general standards said above a reserved category
shall be eligible for allocation candidate selected on general
against the available insider un- standards shall be eligible for
26 OA No. 303/2012
reserved vacancy as per his merit allocation against the available and preference. But if he cannot un- reserved vacancy as per his be allocated against such merit and preference. But if he vacancy, for he is lower in rank cannot be allocated against such as compared with other general vacancy, for he is lower in rank category candidates, he shall be compared with other general considered for allocation as per category candidates, he shall be his merit and preference against considered for allocation as per the available insider vacancy of his merit - and preference against his category and, in case found the available vacancy of his eligible, adjusted by exchanging category.
insider vacancy in his category into insider UR vacancy and outsider UR vacancy into outsider reserved vacancy of his category. This is to ensure that such candidates is not placed at disadvantageous position vis- a-
vis other candidates of his category in the merit list below him.
33. The applicant has alleged that there has been manipulation in the allotment of cadres. According to him, for the 2003 exams, results came out in 2004, but cadre allocation was done in 2005. He has not mentioned the name of any beneficiary of the alleged manipulation though he has raised this point in this OA and earlier in his representation, dt. 14.07.2010, addressed to the 2nd respondent, viz., the Director General (Forests) and Special Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests. While disposing of the representation, Respondent no. 3 did not rebut this allegation. It was 27 OA No. 303/2012 simply said in the reply, dt. 14.01.2011, that the vacancy in the relevant year was for BC outsider and his request could not be agreed to "at this stage". Since no alleged beneficiary is named or made respondent to substantiate this serious allegation of manipulation and favouritism in cadre allocation, we do not intend to comment on this hearsay allegation.
34. There is repeated assertion on the part of the State Government, Respondent no. 5, herein, in their reply, dt. 08.04.2022, that the matter of cadre allocation falls in the domain of the Central Government. The relevant paras in the reply affidavit are extracted below :-
"3. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant herein Dr.K. Anandh, IFS., (JK) had taken up the Indian Forest Service Exam as a candidate from the State of Tamil Nadu, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission for the year 2004 batch. The applicant was allotted to Jammu & Kashmir cadre as per the rules and regulations and cadre allocation and the roaster system followed by the Government of India. The Government of India in their letter dated 14.01.2011 has informed the applicant Dr.K. Anandh, IFS., that the vacancy for the allotment for the year 2004 for Tamil Nadu was carmarked for OBC outsider As there was no vacancy available for inside OBC, he was allotted to Jammu & Kashmir as per roaster play.
x x x x x "5. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant Dr.K. Anandh, IFS., has challenged the allotment order of Government of India and the roaster followed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The prerogative of deciding the cadre based on set of rules vests with the Government of India. The State Government has nothing to do with the prayer of the applicant in this case as the subject matter of the above mentioned Original Application lies in the domain of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
x x x x x "8. ....... it is respectfully submitted that the applicant has challenged the Cadre Allocation Policy of the Government of India. The allotment of Indian Forest Service Officers by direct recruitment by the Union Public Service 28 OA No. 303/2012 Commission to different State Cadres is made by the first respondent (i.e.) the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi. The prerogative of deciding the cadre based on set of rules vests with the Government of India. The State Government has nothing to do with the prayer of the applicant in this case as the subject matter of the above mentioned Original Application lies in the domain of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change."
35. In view of the total self-abrogation on the part of the State Government, as above, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the applicable rule, in this regard. Rule 5 of the IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966, reads as follows -
"5. Allocation of members to various cadres.- 5(1) The allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned. 5(2) The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Government concerned, transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre." (emphasis added)
36. We have taken note of the non-committal stand of the State Government. They have just not answered the charges levelled by the applicant.
37. The judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 8418 of 2011, in the case of A. Periasamy, IFS Vs. Union of India and ors., and the consequent action shows that cadre change was effected in the case of Shri. A Periasamy, on getting the concurrence of the State Government. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the State Government, R-5, that the matter of cadre allocation falls entirely in the domain of the Central Government. Under the constitutional scheme, it is binding on the Central Government to consult the State Government in the matter of cadre 29 OA No. 303/2012 allocation. And if the Central Government or the State Government has failed to act, as per rules, the entire process becomes ultra vires, which would call for corrective action, after due consultation between the Central and the State Governments. The hands-off policy declared by the State Government raises concern over the procedure adopted in cadre allocation
38. The following issues, raised by the applicant, merit due attention -
i) the roster was not maintained properly for the Tamil Nadu cadre, ii) There were excess of outsiders in the cadre, iii) The ratio of 2 : 1 was not maintained for outsiders and insiders in the cadre, iv) Representations of other officers were considered and their cadre was changed.
39. It is an admitted fact that the ratio of 2 : 1 was fixed for All India Services in the year 1984. Thus, it was mandatory to follow the guidelines in this regard. If we were to take into consideration the tables provided by the applicant, giving the break-up of officers allotted to the Tamil Nadu cadre, from 1983 onwards, the number of insiders is apparently way below the ratio prescribed.
30 OA No. 303/2012
40. In the light of the above discussions, the following directions are issued :-
i. The applicant may submit a fresh representation to the competent authority, with a copy to the State Government, within 2 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, setting out the specific rules and principles laid down in connected judicial pronouncements, that have been allegedly violated/overlooked in preparation of roster and in allocation of Indian Forest Service Officers to the Tamil Nadu Cadre;
ii. The Tamil Nadu Government shall reconcile the figures in respect of the vacancies for insiders and outsiders as well as different categories, as per the roster, in the TN cadre;
iii. If it is confirmed, on such a review, that lopsided allocation of insiders and outsiders has been done, the State Government of Tamil Nadu shall suggest measures to the Central Government, for rectification of the same;
iv. As a consequence of review of cadre allocation as above, from the 1984 exam upto the 2003 exam, held by the UPSC, for selection of Indian Forest Service Officers, if a suitable vacancy is found, the applicant shall be accommodated in the Tamil Nadu Cadre, as per his seniority in the 2004 batch, through mutual consultation between R1 and R5;
v. The outcome of the review shall be communicated to the applicant through a detailed, speaking order.
The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation from the applicant.
41. In the above terms, the OA is disposed of. Any pending MAs shall also be closed. No order as to costs.
(M. Swaminathan) (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)
Member (J) Member (A)
03.07.2024
Mas/SKSI