Bishnu Charan Mallick v. Secretary,Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance and Ors

ORDER o

08.11.2011

¶1The petition impugns the order dated 20.0I.2011 of the Principal Bench of the Cenfi'al Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing O.A.No.2 69812009 preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and thereby negativing the claim of the petitioner, who cleared the Civil Services Examination,2006, to the Cadre ofhis Horne State, Orissa. W.P.(C) No.22t 1201 I Page I of6 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I Z. The Tribunal has given three reasons for declining the relief to the petitioner. Firstly, that a selected candidate though has a right to be considered for appointrnent to the IAS but has no right to be allocated a Cadre of his choice or to his Home State and that allotnent of Cadle is an incidence of service. Reliance in this regard was placed on Union of India Vs. Rajiv Yadav 1994 (6) SCC 38; Secondly, it was held that no elror was found in the allocation of Cadres; Lastly, it was held that the petitioner had not impleaded the persons who would necessarily have to be moved out of the Orissa Cadre if the clairn of the petitioner was to be accepted and in the absence of which persons, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.

¶3The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has also contended that the challenge was rnade by the petitioner belatedly i.e. after two years.

¶4The counsel for the petitioner before us has taken great pains to urge that the Policy for allotnent of a cadre had been violated in depriving the petitioner of his Home Cadre. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and had obtained lltr' position in the merit list in the Civil Services Examination, 2006. It is not in dispute, that in the relevant year 2007, of the four vacancies in Orissa Cadre only one was Insider earmarked W.P.(C) No.221t20lt Page 2 of6 for General Category and the other three were Outsider, one each for General, SC/ST & OBC; that the said Insider vacancy was allocated to Sh' Arvind Aggarwal from General Category having 8tr'i.e. better rank than the petitioner and also belonging to Orissa State. The crux of the argument of the petitioner is that the lone Insider vacancy though in the relevant year' belonging to General Category, ought to have been treated as belonging to reserved category owing to the Policy reserving 22.5% of total number of Insider vacancies for reserved category but the overall reserved category insider officers in the State being less than 22.5o/o, being only 10'52%o' Tl.te petitioner thus contends that all insider vacancies, even if in subsecluent years belonging to general category, ought to be allocated to reserved category till the prescribed ratio is achieved. Reliance is placed on principles laid down in,R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Puniab (1995) 2 SCC

745.

¶5The Tribunal in the impugned order has also dealt in detail with the said contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the ratio of the Insider Quota of the SC/ST Category has to be maintained in the overall recruitrnent to the Civil. Services in each yeal and the unfilled / Insider vacancies in the reserved category of a particular yeil ale not caried Ytr.P.(C) No.22l12011 Page 3 of6 B forwald to the next Year'.

¶6We have perused the Policy. We are unable to decipher there om . any requirement to so caray forward the reserved Insider vacancies to the subsequent year or to rnaintain overall reservation to the extent of 22.5%o rn the Insider quota. The working of the Policy for allocation of Cadre is dependent on the total number of vacancies to be fi|led up on the basis of a parlicular examination and which are distributed fi'om amongst the general, SC/ST, OBC categories and thereafter alnong various Cadres' The disfiibution of Insider and Outsider vacancies in each Cadre itself is on a rolling basis between different States and unfilled reserved Insider vacancies devolve each year to General Category candidates. On perusal of Policy, we do not find any scope therein for carry forward of reserved insider vacancies and if the same were to be infi'oduced, it would make the entire Policy as exists, unworkable.

¶7There is another aspect of the matter. Allocation of insider vacancies within a category is strictly on the basis of ranks. If it were to be held that the reserved category vacancies are to be so carried forward, a situation may well arise where notwithstanding category vacancy, the candidate with highest rank may be deprived of his Home State. Such a situation will W.P.(C) No.22ltDOl1 a arnount to making candidates taking examination in a particular yeil cornpeting not only amongst themselves but also with those who had taken the exam in previous yeaf. The same will be contrary to competition and cannot be permi1ed. Moreover, when the Scherne itself provides for yearly disfiibution / allocation, the concept of carry forward carurot be introduced' specially when, as held by the Apex Court, there is no right to a particular Cadres. g. Merit is also found in the contention that the petition prefened by the petitioner was bad for non joinder of necessary parties' The petitioner could not have been given the relief without displacing Sh. Arvind Aggarwal aforesaid from orissa cadre in as much as appointnents beyond vacancies could not have been made. The Tribunal corectly distinguished the judgments cited by petitioner in this regard by observing that the present was not a case of challenge to any Rules for it to be said that affected parties were not required to be impleaded; the present was a case of interpretation of or challenge to executive insfructions' g. We may also notice that the Policy / Scheme aforesaid though labelled aS "Roster System" ought not to be confused with the term as used in service jurisprudence and is merely a method of allocation of Cadre' W.P.(C) No.22l1DOl1 lo R.K. Subharwalwould have no application'

¶10No case recluiring judicial review of the well reasoned order of the Tdbunal is rnade out. There is no merit in the petition' Dismissed' No order as to costs. tu+6 -LJJ+- I ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SAHAI ENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 08,2011 'gsr' IV.P.(C) No.221lDtil I Page 6 of6

32$- * THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + V/.P.(C)No.221L|ZILI BISHNU CHARAN MALLICK ..... Petitioner Ttu'ough: Mr. T.V' George & Mr. Maurya Sarkar, Advs. Versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & PUBLIC GRIEVANCE & ORS. ..... Respondents Throueh: lvlr. R.V. Sinha & Mr. R.N' Singh, Advs' for R-1&2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHMF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW