W.P.(C) 2544/2012. Case: Shankar Lal Kumawat Vs Union of India. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) 2544/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sachin Datta and Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Advocates |
| Judges | Pradeep Nandrajog and V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. |
| Issue | All India Services Act, 1951 - Section 3; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1), 312 |
| Judgement Date | October 07, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
-
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 07, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 2579/2011, whereby the claim of the petitioner inter-alia for a direction to allocate him his home cadre of Rajasthan instead of Tamil Nadu was rejected.
Facts
The petitioner was a successful candidate of Civil Services Examination (hereinafter referred to as CSE), 2009 and was allotted Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
-
The respondent notified the CSE Rules, 2009 vide Gazette Notification dated December 06, 2008. Rule 2 stipulated that a candidate was supposed to indicate his/her preferences for various services/post for which he/she would like to be considered for appointment. The said Rule also stipulated that a candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for main examination his/her preference for various State Cadres.
-
Further Rule 19(ii) of CSE Rules, 2009 stipulated that the cadre allotment to candidates' appointment to IAS/IPS will be governed by the policy of cadre allotment in force at the time of allotment of cadre. Due consideration will be given at the time of making allocation on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for various cadres at the time of his application.
-
Some of the preferences which the petitioner gave for various State Cadres in case of his appointment to IAS/IPS in his main examination form are as follows:
-
The result of CSE, 2009 was declared on May 06, 2010 and the petitioner obtained rank 168 and was allocated the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
-
In the Rajasthan Cadre there were four vacancies in IAS. The same is given in the tabular form:
-
The four vacancies were filled in the following manner:
-
The successful candidates reported to LBS National Academy of Administration, Mussorie for their Foundation Course on August 30, 2010. The respondent issued Cadre allocation policy in terms of O.M. dated April 10, 2008.
-
The Foundation Course which started from August 30, 2010 at LBSNAA, Mussoorie was over on December 12, 2010 and thereafter, the next phase of training at LBSNAA, Mussoorie had started from February 20, 2011. However, even at that point of time no cadre allocation of IAS-2010 was done by the respondent.
-
The Respondent issued an O.M. dated April 21, 2011 vide which para 9 of the existing O.M. dated April 10, 2008 was amended. The said amendment was brought into force with effect from CSE, 2009.
-
Pursuant to the publication of O.M. dated April 21, 2011, the respondent published the complete cadre allocation of CSE, 2009 on May 12, 2011. The petitioner was allocated Tamil Nadu Cadre.
-
The petitioner thereafter submitted his representation dated May 19, 2011 to the respondent, wherein he requested for his allocation to his home cadre Rajasthan instead of Tamil Nadu, however, no response was made thereto.
-
The petitioner thereafter sent reminders dated May 28, 2011 and June 07, 2011, however, there was no response from the respondents.
-
The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 2579/2011, wherein he had sought the following reliefs:
(a) Quash O.M. dated 21/04/2011 of the Respondent to the extent of retrospectivity attached to it, and
(b) Consequently direct the Respondent to dispose of the representation dated 19/05/2011 of the Applicant and allocate him his home cadre Rajasthan instead of Tamilnadu cadre allocated to him, and/or
(c) Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
-
The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was essentially on four grounds. Firstly, reliance was placed on Rule 19(ii) of Civil Services Examination Rules, 2009 which provides that the cadre allocation to candidate appointed to IAS and IPS will be governed by the policy of cadre allocation in force at the time of allocation of cadre. The result of the Civil Services Examination were declared on May 06, 2010 and the Foundation Course commenced on August 30, 2010 and thus for the purpose of allocation of his cadre his case should have been considered in accordance with the policy in force at the time of allocation i.e. April 10, 2008 and not Cadre Allocation Policy dated April 21, 2011. Secondly, it was the case of the petitioner that in the light of the settled principle of law retrospective effect cannot be given to an Executive order unless the statutory provisions permits the authorities to give such retrospective effect. It was also the stand that in the light of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel the respondents are bound to allocate him in accordance with the Cadre Policy dated April 10, 2008.
-
Thirdly, it was the case of the petitioner that even though Section 3 of the All India Service Act, 1951 confers the power on the respondents to give retrospective effect to the rules framed by it for the purpose of regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed through All India Service but such retrospective effect cannot be given effect to the extent that any person to whom such rule is applicable is prejudiciary effected.
-
Finally the petitioner stand was that according to paragraph 10 of the Cadre Allocation Policy the exercise of allocation of cadre must be done as early as possible and before the commencement of the Foundation Course at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. According to him since the results have been declared on May 06, 2010 and Foundation Course commenced on August 30, 2010 the respondents should have published the complete cadre allocation before August 30, 2010 but instead the respondents published the same at a much belated stage only on May 12, 2011 and therefore the cadre allocation is bad.
-
The respondent has taken the following stand in its reply before the Tribunal:
-
That when a person is appointed to All India Service, having various State Cadres, he has no right to claim allocation to a state of his choice or to his home state. Rule 5 of the relevant Cadre Rules makes the Central Government, the sole authority to allocate the members of service to various cadres. It is not obligatory for the Central Government to frame rules/regulations or otherwise notify the principles of cadre allocation.
-
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Union of India Vs. Rajiv Yadav", reported in 1994(6) SCC 38 has held that a selected candidate at best has...
To continue reading
Request your trial