Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

―5.3.1 However, Para 4 of the Cadre Allocation Policy- 2017 provides the eventualities if a candidate does not give any preference for any of the Zones/Cadres, in that case it will be presumed that he has no specific preference for those Zones/cadres. Accordingly, if he is not allocated to any one of the cadres for which he has indicated the preference, he shall be allotted along with other such candidates in the manner prescribed. The candidates are required to apply their prudence while filling their order of preferences for Zones/Cadres because of the fact that the liberty of not exercising preferences comes with a caution that they would be allocated in a manner prescribed in Para 4 of the Cadre Allocation Policy-2017. Therefore, it may be appreciated that merely indication of preference does not guarantee allocation to a particular cadre and allocation against the outsider vacancy has to be done as per the modalities defined in Para 8(iii) of the CAP-2017. A candidate cannot be allocated to a cadre for which he has indicated preference in violation of the guide line given in paragraph 8(iii) of Cadre Allocation Policy-2017 such as explained in the following situations. 5.3.2 When a candidate does not indicate preference for any cadre in the sequential order as explained in Para 5.3 (A) & (B) above; in that situation it is to be seen as to whether only those preferences, indicated by the candidate wherein the provisions of Para 8(iii) of Cadre Allocation Policy has been ignored, has to be operated while allocating the candidate against the outsider vacancies or only those preferences have to be considered where a candidate has completed the sequence of preference as per the provisions of paragraph 8(iii) of the Cadre Allocation Policy. It may be appreciated that when the Cadre Allocation Policy has given an option to the candidate for "not to opt" particular cadre(s)/ zones, then it has a provision of allocation of cadre to such limited preference candidates, thus it may be seen that the candidates have to use their right of not opting a cadre/ zone wisely because of the fact that the outsider allocation has to be done in manner prescribed in Para 8(iii) of the CAP-2017 that provides for making sequence for considering a particular candidate in the order of preferences for first zone to fifth zone. Thus, as soon as a candidate gives nil/no preference for a cadre in the said sequential order, and if he could not be allocated to a cadre, for want of vacancy in his category, for which he has indicated preferences before indicating nil preference for the cadre in the sequence as mentioned above, he would be considered as equal (limited) preference candidate and allocated to a cadre as per such provision.‖ (emphasis supplied)

22. In response to paragraph 19, 23 and 25 of the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondents is as follows:

"This humble Respondent would like to draw attention of this Hon'ble High Court that the petitioners, have tried to impress upon the fact that they have liberty to give preference in their own way for allocation to a particular cadre and it has nothing to do with the provisions of Para 8(iii) of the Cadre Allocation Policy-2017. What the petitioners aspires that can be explained by an example that a candidate does not opt Zone, IV (West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam- Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura and Nagaland), then as per the contentions of the petitioners, he would not be considered for this Zone at the time of allocation along with all those candidates who eventually opted this Zone. What happens in that case, if Mr. A ranked 5th does not opt for Zone-IV whereas Mr. B ranked 4th opts for this Zone, then Mr. B higher in rank than Mr. A will be considered for allocation to a cadre in Zone-IV, there will be chances that Rank 4th gets allocated to any of the cadres in this Zone but at the same time Rank 5 th has taken the liberty to skip this Zone and is to be initially considered for allocation to a cadre other than this Zone-IV. Hence, despite being meritorious, Rank 4 does get allocated to a cadre in Zone-IV but Rank 5 skipped the chances of being allocated to a cadre in this Zone-IV which is his un-preferred zone. This phenomenon had been foreseen and thus the modalities given in Para 8(iii) have been made in order to ensure that allocation is run in a manner explained in Para 5.2 above to ward off such situations. It is most humbly submitted that the policy applicable prior to implementation of the extant policy, the candidates were required to indicate order of preferences for all the cadres. It was very evident at that point of time that cadres in North Eastern part of the country used to be least preferred cadres. If what the petitioners are contending is accepted or treated as correct, a situation may arise that, all the cadres of North East, which used to be least preferred cadre, may not be opted by most of the candidates in the present scheme too, thereby creating a situation where number of candidates who are allocated to these cadres shall be the lower ranked candidates of each category, which was actually the situation getting created as per the earlier cadre allocation policy. Therefore, the current policy ensures that merit is equally distributed among all the Cadres and minimizes the chances of creation of cluster of (merit or language) officers in a particular part of the country. Further if a candidate does not opt for a cadre in a Zone he is actually deciding his term of being considered for a specific cadre. For Example in Zone I if someone has opted for all the cadres but not Jammu & Kashmir and similarly leaving one or two cadres in every zone, thus he actually forms a Roster for himself as per his choice by lowering his chances of being allocated to a cadre he prefers least. This is not the provision and spirit of the Cadre Allocation Policy-2017.
"What the petitioners aspires that can be explained by an example that a candidate does not opt Zone, IV (West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam- Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura and Nagaland), then as per the contentions of the petitioners, he would not be considered for this Zone at the time of allocation along with all those candidates who eventually opted this Zone. What happens in that case, if Mr. A ranked 5 th does not opt for Zone-IV whereas Mr. B ranked 4th opts for this Zone, then Mr. B higher in rank than Mr. A will be considered for allocation to a cadre in Zone-IV, there will be chances that Rank 4th gets allocated to any of the cadres in this Zone but at the same time Rank 5th has taken the liberty to skip this Zone and is to be initially considered for allocation to a cadre other than this Zone-IV. Hence, despite being meritorious, Rank 4 does get allocated to a cadre in Zone-IV but Rank 5 skipped the chances of being allocated to a cadre in this Zone-IV which is his un-preferred zone." (emphasis supplied)

79. Thus, on the one hand, the now disclosed objective of the Cadre Allocation Policy - 2017 is to ensure that meritorious candidates also get allocated to the less preferred cadres and the All India character of the services is maintained, on the other hand, the respondents seek to espouse the cause of the more meritorious candidates by claiming that the more meritorious candidates may get allocated to the less preferred zones and cadres, while lesser meritorious candidates may get allocated to the higher preferred zones and cadres.