W.P. (C) No. 2571/2001. Case: UOI and Ors. Vs S. Sengathir and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) No. 2571/2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Amit Mahajan, CGSC and For Respondents: Shanker Raju and Aditya Dhar, Advocates |
| Judges | Kailash Gambhir and I.S. Mehta, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 226, 309, 312, 312(2) |
| Judgement Date | May 12, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
I.S. Mehta, J.
-
The petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has preferred the present writ-petition for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 24.11.2000, in O.A. No. 781/98 and O.A. No. 782/98 wherein the claim of the respondent No. 1 for cadre allocation of home state i.e. Tamil Nadu was allowed.
-
The brief facts as set out by the respondent No. 1 in the O.A. 781/1998 are that he, i.e. S. Sengathir, belongs to the OBC Category from the State of Tamil Nadu, appeared in the Civil Services Examination - 1996 (CSE-1996) and secured the rank of 330 in the said examination and another candidate namely R. Rajasekaran, who too filed O.A. No. 782/1998, also secured rank of 338 in the said examination.
-
The respondent No. 1 was allocated to the Indian Police Service on the basis of he being an OBC category candidate of Tamil Nadu State and thereafter, petitioner No. 1, asked the respondent No. 1 to join the foundation course at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie vide letter dated 09.08.1997. After completion of his foundation course, he was allocated the Rajasthan Cadre instead of State of Tamil Nadu despite his preference given in the application form. The only higher ranker for the State of Tamil Nadu in the OBC category, was Shri K.S. Palanisamy, who secured the rank of 244 in the said examination i.e. CSE-1996, but later, he did not join the foundation course. Consequently, the respondent, S. Sengathir, came to the first position amongst the OBC candidates from the State of Tamil Nadu.
-
There were six vacancies for the State of Tamil Nadu, and the respondent-applicant, despite holding the first position, was not allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the respondent be given the preference to the Home State after following the roster system in view of the judgment Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 380, and the order No. 11011/32/97-Trg-IPS (P) 50 dated 17.03.1998 and further impugned order No. MHA (S) OM NO. I- 12015/F/195-IPS IV dated 06.03.1998 be set aside.
-
The petitioner, Union of India, admitted in their written statement that the respondent No. 1 i.e. S. Sengathir, qualified the CSE-1996 with rank 330 and allocated to the IPS cadre. It was stated that there were six vacancies of the IPS in the State of Tamil Nadu. Out of these six vacancies, three were for general category, one was reserved for OBC candidate and two were reserved for SC/ST candidate. The aforesaid allocation of cadre was done after following the Principles of Cadre Allocation of All India Services Officers under the Roster System. The aforesaid six vacancies were distributed amongst two insiders (one for general and one for SC/ST) and four outsiders (two for general and one each for OBC and SC/ST). Hence, there was no insider vacancy for OBC category in the IPS cadre of the Tamil Nadu to be filled up on the basis of CSE-1996. The respondent No. 1 is claiming the right over the drop-out vacancy and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of Right. There was only one exchanged insider OBC vacancy, which was filled up by Shri K.S. Palanisamy, who had higher rank than the respondent No. 1. Since no other insider OBC vacancy was available, the respondent No. 1 could not be allocated to his home state i.e. Tamil Nadu.
-
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Union of India, has drawn our attention towards the fact that allocation of cadre was done on the basis of the government policy based on "Principles of Cadre Allocation of All India Services Officers under the Roster System" and the respondent No. 1 i.e. S. Sengathir, being a member of All India Service should not have any grievance merely because the cadre to which he had been allocated does not suit him and does not violate the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has pointed out that the petitioners, while not allocating the home cadre to the respondent No. 1 despite, he making it to the first position amongst the OBC candidates belonging to the State of Tamil Nadu, after non- reporting of K.S. Palanisamy to the foundation course as an insider OBC candidate, violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, on preferring the O.A. 781/98, the learned Tribunal has correctly passed the necessary orders in favour of the respondent i.e. S. Sengathir. Therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed with costs.
-
Excessive desire or possessiveness of allocation of home cadre is the main cause of filing O.A. No. 781/98 ignoring the fact that IPS is an elite service entrusted with important functions of national interest, internal security, public safety and maintenance of law & order of the Union of India.
The Indian Police Service which is called in short-form as the IPS is not just the law enforcing agency in its own right rather it also ought to perform its duty under Article 312 of the Constitution of India.
-
The respondent No. 1 i.e. S. Sengathir after his selection as an IPS officer came out with a plea that he be allocated his home-state i.e. Tamil Nadu rather than the State of Rajasthan. The question arises whether such plea or the claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial