O.A. No. 396 of 1997. Case: Khushwant Singh Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 396 of 1997 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.S. Singhvi, Adv. and For Respondents: S.K. Vyas and H.K. Purohit, Advs. |
| Judges | B.S. Raikote, J. (Vice Chairman) and Gopal Singh, Member (A) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 21(3) |
| Citation | 2003 (2) SLJ 76 (CAT) |
| Judgement Date | November 03, 2000 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
B.S. Raikote, Vice-Chairman (J)
1. This application (O.A. No. 719/94) originally filed before the Principal Bench of the C.A.T., New Delhi, has been transferred to this Bench by the order of Hon'ble the Chairman, C.A.T., Principal Bench, New Delhi, dated 05.12.97. Accordingly, the same has been registered within this Tribunal as O.A. No. 3967 97.
2. Applicant, Shri Khushwant Singh, has filed this application for following reliefs:-
(i) Call for the records of the case;
(ii) quash the cadre allocation of IPS Probationers of 1990 batch at Annexure A/ 1 to the extent the same allocates the applicant to the IPS cadre of Manipur-Tripura (Tripura);
(iii) quash the cadre allocation of Shri Sanjay Nagpal to the IPS cadre of Union Territory by the respondent No. 1;
(iv) direct the respondents to allocate the applicant to IPS cadre of Union Territories with all consequential benefits including seniority in the Union Territory cadre;
(v) direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to the applicant; and
(vi) pass any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Applicant stated that he appeared in the Indian Forest Service Examination, 1989, and on the basis of the result of the said examination, he was assigned rank No. 13 in All merit list. He stated that at the time of applying for appearing in the said examination, the applicant had expressed his willingness to be allocated to his home State, i.e., Union Territory. He has stated that in the merit list, Shri Sanjay Nagpal was at rank No. 12 and the applicant was at rank No. 13. Shri Sanjay Nagpal who had occupied the position over and above the applicant was given offer of appointment to Union Territory vide letter dated 26.07.90 with the stipulation that if the offer of appointment is acceptable to him, he should join the Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie on 20th August, 1990, and in case he does not accept the offer of appointment and does not join the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration within the stipulated time, the offer of appointment would stand cancelled. The said offer of appointment is filed at Annexure A/4. The applicant submitted that in fact, Shri Sanjay Nagpal neither accepted the offer nor joined the Lal Bahadur Shastry National Academy of Administration on or after 20.08.1990. In fact, on the basis of his ranking in Civil Service Examination, 1989, securing 13th rank in All India merit list, he was offered Indian Police Service (IPS, for short) and accordingly, he accepted the said offer to Indian Police Service and he was allocated to IPS cadre on 15.02.91. Thus, Shri Sanjay Nagpal is not a member of IPS. In these circumstances, the applicant should have been allocated to the Union Territory cadre as an 'insider'. He stated that Shri Sanjay Nagpal, who was above in rank, did not join Union Territory cadre as an 'insider', the applicant should have been allocated the Union Territory cadre as an 'insider, being next in the rank. Therefore, allocating the applicant to IPS cadre of Manipur-Tripura vide Annexured A/1 dated 20.03.92 is illegal. The applicant further contended that in pursuance of the guidelines issued vide D.O. No. 13013/5/84-AIS (I) dated 30/31.05.85 (Annexure A/3), the applicant was entitled to be allocated Union Territory cadre as an 'insider', since he belongs to Delhi. Therefore, Annexure A/1 is liable to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to allocate IPS cadre of Union Territory to the applicant.
4. By filing counter, the respondents have denied the case of the applicant. They have stated that the cadre allocation has been done strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi, vide Annexure A/3 dated 30/ 31.05.95. They have also stated that the present application was barred by time. At any rate, the allocation of cadre for the candidates appointed to the IPS was considered strictly in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines. Such candidates considered were 67 in number, including those have already joined the service and others who have to join the training subsequently. He further stated that at the time of issuing the notification dated 20.03.92 vide Annexure A/1, the name of Shri Sanjay Nagpal and 7 others who have not joined the service, were not included in the notification. They further submitted that the process of cadre allocation once finalised, cannot be reversed or changed. They stated that for the year 1990 batch of the IPS, there was only one vacancy in the Union Territory cadre, which was to be filled up by an 'insider' candidate. They further stated in paras 11 and 12 of the reply, as under-
11. With reference to paras 4.10 and 4.11, it is admitted that Shri Sanjay Nagpal was given offer of appointment by the answering respondents. It is, however, submitted that all the candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of Indian Forest Service...
To continue reading
Request your trial