CWP No. 2086 of 2009. Case: Manu Maharaaj Vs Union of India and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | CWP No. 2086 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Bipin C. Negi, Senior Advocate and Arush Matlotia, Advocate and For Respondents: Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India and Ajay Chauhan, Advocate |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. and Sureshwar Thakur, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4) |
| Judgement Date | November 05, 2015 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
-
The writ petitioner, by the medium of this writ petition, has called in question the judgment and order, dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 617/HP/2006, titled as Shri Manu Maharaj versus Union of India (Annexure P-5) (for short "the impugned judgment") and has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for allotting him the Himachal Pradesh Cadre in terms of his option, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.
-
The writ petition, on the face of it, merits to be dismissed. However, it stands admitted, calls for detailed and speaking judgment.
Brief facts:
-
The writ petitioner participated successfully in the Civil Services Examination, 2004, in the discipline of Indian Police Services and was allotted Bihar cadre, which constrained him to file representation, was rejected, constraining him to approach the Tribunal by the medium of the Original Application on the grounds, which are enumerated in para 5 of the said Original Application, as under:
5.I) That since the applicant while appearing in the Civil Services examination has opted for the allocation of the Home cadre and he was allocated the Bihar cadre. The respondents have rejected the representation of the application on a wrong criteria, since the applicant appeared in the examination as a General Candidate and not as a OBC Candidate and his rank was in the All India Merit list was 132. The respondents rejected the case of the applicant that since the applicant belongs to OBC category candidate and as such he could not be given the vacancy meant for General category candidate. The vacancies filled up in the IPS cadre of H.P. was to be filled up against an outside roster point meant for general category candidate, but the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant as an insider candidate from Himachal Pradesh belonging to O.B.C. category and as such he was not eligible for allocation to I.P.S. cadre of Himachal Pradesh.
II). That the rejection of the representation of the applicant is illegal for allocation to Himachal Pradesh, as the applicant belongs to general category candidate and as per the merit list pertaining to the H.P. he was toping the list and as such was eligible for allocation to the Himachal Pradesh cadre.
III). That even the respondent No. 2 has no objection regarding allocation of probationers to the IPS cadre of State on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 2004 (2005 batch). The respondent No. 1 has allotted only 1 IPS officer to the respondent No. 2 and one more IPS probationer is yet to be allocated to the respondent No. 2, as such the request of the applicant can be acceded to for which the applicant prays.
-
No other ground was pressed into service and the relief sought was to direct the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner.
-
The respondents resisted the Original Application by the medium of reply. The specific pleas have been taken in paras 3 to 7 of the reply.
-
The Tribunal examined the pleadings and the law applicable, held that the writ petitioner has no right to seek allotment of any particular State...
To continue reading
Request your trial