Civil Appeal No. 1911 of 2006. Case: G. Srinivas Rao Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 1911 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. and For Respondents: Ugra Shankar Prasad, Sushma Suri and G.N. Reddy, Advs. |
| Judges | R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rules 3 and 5; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1), 136 and 226 |
| Citation | JT 2011 (10) SC 45, 2011 (7) SCALE 723, 2011 (8) SCC 123 |
| Judgement Date | July 19, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Patnaik, J.
-
This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 03.02.2005 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 8072 of 2004 filed by the Appellant.
-
The facts very briefly are that the Appellant, a general candidate not belonging to any reserved category, took the Civil Services Examination, 1998 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and he secured 95th rank and was appointed to the IPS and was allocated to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre on 27.10.1999. Respondent No. 4, who as an OBC candidate, also took the Civil Services Examination, 1998 and secured 133rd rank and was appointed to the IPS and was allocated to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre on 27.07.1999. The Appellant filed O.A. No. 155 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, contending that instead of Respondent No. 4 he should have been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre and that the allocation of Respondent No. 4 to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre was bad in law, unjust and unsustainable. The Appellant prayed for a direction from the Tribunal to the Respondent No. 1 to allocate him to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre. The Tribunal, however, did not find any irregularity in the roster system followed by the Respondent No. 1 in making the allocations and by order dated 25.07.2001 dismissed the O.A. The Appellant challenged the order dated 25.07.2001 of the Tribunal before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in Writ Petition No. 17902 of 2002 and contended that though there was in the year 1999 a vacancy for a general candidate in the Andhra Pradesh Cadre to which the Appellant could be allocated, this was converted to a vacancy for OBC candidate and the Respondent No. 4 was allocated to this vacancy in the Andhra Pradesh Cadre. The Appellant also contended before the High Court that this vacancy for a general candidate was converted to a vacancy for OBC candidate on the ground that relevant data for five years in respect of OBC was not available though actually such data was available. Since this aspect of the matter had not been considered by the Tribunal, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
-
After the case was remanded to the Tribunal, the Respondent No. 1 filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking leave to file an additional affidavit and pursuant to leave granted by the Tribunal, the Respondent No. 1 filed an additional affidavit. In this additional affidavit, the Respondent No. 1 stated that a total number of 36 vacancies in the IPS were to be filled up on the basis of the Civil Services Examination, 1998 and out of total number of 36 vacancies, 21 vacancies were to be filled up by general candidates, 10 vacancies were to be filled up by OBC candidates and 5 vacancies were to be filled up by SC/ST candidates in accordance with the reservation provisions and the roster points and in May 1999, the vacancies were distributed category-wise in the following manner:
S.L
Cadre
Total vacancies
27% OBC rounded off
22.5 % SC/ST rounded off
Genera l
1.
Andhra Pradesh
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
2.
Assam Meghalaya
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
3.
Bihar
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
4.
Gujarat
3
.81
1
.675
1
1
5.
Haryana
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
6.
Himachal Pradesh
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
7.
J & K
3
.81
1
.675
1
1
8.
Karnataka
3
.81
1
.675
1
1
9.
Kerala
2
.54
1
.450
0
1
10.
Madhya Pradesh
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
11.
Maharashtra
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
12.
Manipur Tripura
4
1.08
1
.900
1
2
13.
Nagaland
2
.54
1
.450
0
1
14.
Orissa
2
.54
1
.450
0
1
15.
Punjab
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
16.
Rajasthan
4
1.08
1
.900
1
2
17.
Sikkim
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
18.
Tamil Nadu
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
19.
AGMU
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
20.
Uttar Pradesh
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
21.
West Bengal
1
.27
0
.225
0
1
Total
36
8
5
23
Respondent No. 1 further stated in the additional affidavit that since as per the distribution made in the aforesaid table, the total number of vacancies for general candidates worked out to be 23 instead of 21 and total number of vacancies for OBC candidates worked out to be 8 instead of 10, 2 vacancies for general candidates had to be converted to 2 vacancies for OBC candidates. The Respondent No. 1 has also stated in the additional affidavit that as the relevant data for the last five years in respect of OBC candidates was not available with the Respondent on 28.05.1999 when the entire exercise of allocation was completed and approved by the competent authority and the data for four years, i.e. from the Civil Services Examinations, 1994 to Civil Services Examinations, 1995, was available, the earlier advice of the Department of Personnel and Training...
To continue reading
Request your trial