W.P. (C) 7290/2008. Case: UOI & Ors. Vs Abhishekh Dixit. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) 7290/2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prakash Gautam and Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate, Mr. Anil Mittal and Mr. Anuj Kumar Ranjan, Advocates |
| Judges | Pradeep Nandrajog and V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | October 29, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
-
The above captioned writ petition challenges the order dated January 03, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No. 1920/2007 by quashing the order dated June 04, 2007 issued by the Director, SVP, National Police Academy to the extent it concerned the respondent and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to consider the allocation of cadre to the respondent in accordance with the principles laid down in the letter dated May 31, 1985 and to pass a detailed speaking order regarding the same. Before delving into the factual matrix, we note the policy pertaining to allocation of state cadres to the candidates who successfully clear the Civil Services Examination (CSE). We highlight that we would be concerned with the situation existing prior to April 10, 2008 for the reason on April 10, 2008 a new Cadre Allocation Policy has come into force and in the writ petition we are concerned with the cadre allocation pertaining to CSE-2005.
-
From the year 1966 till the year 1977, a roster system was used to allocate State cadre to those who cleared Civil Services Examination and were allocated a Group-A or a Group-B service. The same was changed in the year 1978 with the introduction of the Limited Zonal Preferences system. Since certain deficiencies were noted in the working of the Limited Zonal Preferences system, in the year 1985 the previous roster system was re-adopted with certain modifications. In said regard, on May 31, 1985, a letter was sent by Sh. K. Ramanujam, Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training to Sh. T.N. Seshan, Secretary, Department of Forest and Wildlife detailing the new procedure adopted. It is the common case of the parties that the principles of cadre allocation stand enunciated in the said letter dated May 31, 1985 and thus we note the same. The same reads as under:-
Government of India Ministry of Personnel & Training administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pensions.
Secretary
D.O. No. 13013/5/84-AIS(I) Dated 30/31 May, 1985
Dear Shri Seshan,
As you are aware, the allocation of the direct recruits to the All India Services including the Indian Forest Service is being made in accordance with the 'Limited Zonal Preferences System' from 1978 examination and onwards. In this system all the cadres/joint cadres were divided into zones and the candidates were given the opportunity to indicate their preferences one-wise and also for two cadres in each zone. The allocation was being made keeping in view the rank and preferences of the candidates subject to allocation of vacancies in each cadre between 'insiders' and 'outsiders'.
-
Our experience has shown that the limited zonal preferences system of allocation suffers from a number of deficiencies. Under this system there is only very limited movement of candidates from one part of the country to another across several States and even this limited interregional movement of candidates takes place only in respect of a few low ranking candidates. Another drawback of the system is that 'outsiders' getting allocated to a State are mostly from a neighbouring State.
-
Keeping in view the deficiency that is noticed in the working of the limited zonal preferences system it has been decided with the approval of the Prime Minister that from 1985 batch onwards (1984 examination candidates) we should revert back to the roster system which was the system of allocation from 1966 to 1977 examination with certain modifications. The broad principles of allocation on the basis of roster system would be as follows:-
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(i) All the State cadres/joint Cadres should be arranged in alphabetical order and divided into four groups which, on the basis of the average over a period of time, are taking roughly equal number of candidates each. On the basis of average intake during the last 4 years, the groups could be as follows:
(ii) Since the number of cadres/Joint Cadres is 21, the cycles will be 1-21, 22-42, 43-63 and so on.
(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 II 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.
(vi) For the succeeding year, the State cadres should be arranged again in alphabetical order but with Group I of the previous year at the bottom, i.e., the arrangement will begin with Group II on top. In the third year, Group III will come on top and so on.
(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 part with general candidates for purposes of allotment though they will be counted against reserved vacancies. 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'...
To continue reading
Request your trial