Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 87 (AP)

G. Srinivas Rao v. Union of India, New Delhi

2005-02-03

GODA RAGHURAM, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2005
RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, sri V. T. Gopalan, Additional Solicitor general for India instructed by sri B. Naraslmha Sharma, learned additional Central Government Standing counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned government Pleader for Services-I for the 2nd respondent and Sri Madhav Pannikar, advocate for Sri Bhaskar Poluri for the 4th respondent. ( 2 ) THE substantive grievance of the petitioner is as regards his allocation to the manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre of the Indian police Service. Urging the said grievance, in particular on the ground that his allocation to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre while allocating the 4th respondent to the AP cadre is illegal, the petitioner filed OA no. 155 of 2001 before the Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT ). By the order dated 9-1-2004 the OA was dismissed. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS, IN BRIEF:- (A) The petitioner and the 4th respondent appeared for the Civil services Examination 1998 (CSE 1998) conducted by the UPSC. The 4th respondent belongs to Other backward Classes (OBC) category. While the petitioner secured rank no. 95, the 4th respondent secured rank No. 133 in the over all merit list. (B) While undergoing training at mussoorie, the 1st respondent addressed a communication dated 21-10-1999 to the petitioner offering him an appointment to the IPS on the basis of his qualifying in the cse 1998 and intimating his allotment to the Manipur-Tripura joint Cadre. The petitioner was asked to convey his acceptance of the offer for appointment within the specified time. The 1 st respondent by the notification dated 26-10-1999 allocated various State cadres to the 36 candidates selected to the ips on the basis of the CSE 1998. While the petitioner was allocated to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre, the 4th respondent was allocated to the AP Cadre. (C) On 1-11-1999 the petitioner conveyed his acceptance of the offer, to the 1st respondent, in response to the 1 st respondent s letter dated 21-10-1999. (D) On 20-10-2000 the petitioner addressed the 1st respondent requesting cadre transfer/cadre reallotment to the AP Cadre. (C) On 1-11-1999 the petitioner conveyed his acceptance of the offer, to the 1st respondent, in response to the 1 st respondent s letter dated 21-10-1999. (D) On 20-10-2000 the petitioner addressed the 1st respondent requesting cadre transfer/cadre reallotment to the AP Cadre. In this letter he stated that two unavoidable and unexpected vacancies had arisen in the AP Cadre even before his allotment, this fact was communicated to the 1st respondent by the AP Government and that the AP Chief Minister had also represented the matter to the concerned Union Minister requesting review and reallotment of the petitioner to the AP Cadre, vide a letter dated 30-12-99. The petitioner also referred to his personal circumstances such as his dependent brother s illness which requires his presence in AP and requested transfer or reallotment to the AP Cadre under the available powers under the IPS (Cadre) rules 1954 (for short the Cadre rules ). (E) On 31-10-2000 all the IPS probationers of the 52nd RR (1999) batch including the petitioner and the 4th respondent were intimated movement orders on completion of their 42 weeks basic training informing that they will stand relieved from the National Police academy, Hyderabad, on 31-10-2000 and they should undergo further attachments as specified in the said order. (F) The petitioner filed OA No. 155 of 2001 before the CAT for a direction to the 1 st respondent to allocate him to the AP Cadre. By the judgment dated 25-7-2001 the CAT dismissed the OA. (G) The petitioner filed WP No. 17902 of 2001 before this court against the order of the CAT dated 25-7-2001. A Division Bench of this court by the judgment dated 22-4-2003 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the CAT and remanded the issue to it to consider whether in the context of data being available as to the allotment of the several categories of persons to various states cadres, general vacancies could be decreased mechanically in a State merely because alphabetically a particular State was the first State. This Court also observed that all other questions raised in the writ petition are kept open for consideration by the CAT. (H) The CAT again considered OA no. 155 of 2001 and by the judgment impugned in this writ petition, rejected the petitioner s application. This Court also observed that all other questions raised in the writ petition are kept open for consideration by the CAT. (H) The CAT again considered OA no. 155 of 2001 and by the judgment impugned in this writ petition, rejected the petitioner s application. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the single vacancy in the IPS. RR arising in andhra Pradesh is an "insider general vacancy" and had been irrationally converted by the 1st respondent to an "insider OBC" vacancy by allocating the 4th respondent thereto. According to the petitioner since he is a general candidate and obtained the higher rank of 95 as against rank 133 of the 4th respondent in the over all merit list of CSE 1998 and as the sole vacancy in the AP Cadre for the said recruitment year was allocable to a general insider candidate i. e. , an open vacancy allocable to a candidate hailing from the state of Andhra Pradesh, on all relevant and applicable parameters, the petitioner ought to have been allocated to the AP Cadre and not the 4th respondent. THE STAND OF THE 1st RESPONDENT:- (A) In the CSE 1998 there were a total number of 36 vacancies in the various IPS cadre (from various states ). In accordance with the applicable percentage of reservations (on which aspect there is no contest between the parties herein), 10 vacancies were reserved for the OBC category candidates and 5 for SC/st category, as per the 200 points model post based roster introduced in the IAS/ips from the CSE 1998, in view of the directions of the supreme Court in another case. (B) The cadrewise vacancies to be filled up in each IPS cadre from the CSE 1998 were distributed as per the prescribed percentage for each category as under: ( 21 ) AS two vacancies of general candidates had therefore to be diverted to obc vacancies, the 1 st respondent decided to decrease the general vacancies in the first two State cadres (following the alphabetical method), out of the 13 State cadres, where the neglected fraction was the same. This was done by the 1 st respondent on the basis of the advice and the practice earlier followed by the DOPT. This was done by the 1 st respondent on the basis of the advice and the practice earlier followed by the DOPT. As the cadre allocation pursuant to this exercise in respect of CSE 1998 was made in October 1999, the data pertaining to OBC candidates of CSE 1998 could not possibly have been available with the 1st respondent in May 1999. The petitioner s apprehension that despite availability of data for all 5 years the same was not considered by the 1 st respondent, is therefore seen to be factually without basis. ( 22 ) ANOTHER factor that requires to be considered is that the distribution of candidates hailing from a particular State to other States of the Union is only implemented in case of regular recruitment and not in respect of persons appointed to the Indian Police Service by promotion. This is a policy choice. Neither the implementation of the reservation policy, the methodology and the principles followed for allocation of cadres nor the equitable distribution of regular recruitment candidates to various State or Joint cadres, while accommodating the preferences of some of the candidates belonging to the general and reserved categories and based on their over all or category-wise ranking, are areas per se governed by statutory rules. All these policy choices of the Union of India are on the basis of administrative instructions. In the context of such plural policy choices a spectrum of discretion has to necessarily inhere in the Central Government as to which of such policy choices must have precedence over the others, in a situation where all the choices cannot be wholly or satisfactorily implemented. It is in the exercise of such prerogative that the 1st respondent has presumably given preference to the policies of adhering to the percentage of reservation for OBCs and equitable allocation of cadres to persons belonging to reserved categories over the other policy of maintaining the outsider- insider-outsider ratio, in so far as the CSE 1998, is concerned. It is in the exercise of such prerogative that the 1st respondent has presumably given preference to the policies of adhering to the percentage of reservation for OBCs and equitable allocation of cadres to persons belonging to reserved categories over the other policy of maintaining the outsider- insider-outsider ratio, in so far as the CSE 1998, is concerned. The mere fact that as a result of such prioritisation of its various policy choices by the 1st respondent, the expectations of the petitioner, of allocation to the AP State cadre on the basis of the outsider-insider-outsider principle, has hot been fulfilled, cannot be a ground for invalidating the decision of the 1st respondent, particularly when the non-fulfilment of the petitioner s expectation is not as a result of any conscious decision of the 1st respondent to deny the petitioner his expectations. In the considered view of this court, given the complexity of the situation and the various factors that had to be accommodated by the 1 st respondent in making cadre allocation in respect of the 1998 CSE, the principles followed by the 1st respondent cannot be held to be either arbitrary or irrational. ( 23 ) THOUGH the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of his allocation to the manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre and of the 4th respondent to the AP Cadre and he seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to allot him to the AP Cadre, grant of relief to the petitioner does not involve the merely simplistic exercise of substituting the petitioner with the 4th respondent in the matter of cadre allocation. Even if the petitioner were entitled, in law, for allocation to the AP cadre, in preference to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent cannot automatically be allotted to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre. The 4th respondent has pleaded and this assertion has not been contested, that the vacancy in the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre for the relevant recruitment year i. e. , 1998 cse, is allocable to a "general outsider" candidate under the outsider-insider-outsider principle. If this be so, the 1st respondent would be required to undertake a wider reallocation exercise to identify where the 4th respondent could be allocated as an obc candidate and which candidate could be allocated to the Manipur-Tripura vacancy. In the circumstances any one or more of the other 34 IPS. If this be so, the 1st respondent would be required to undertake a wider reallocation exercise to identify where the 4th respondent could be allocated as an obc candidate and which candidate could be allocated to the Manipur-Tripura vacancy. In the circumstances any one or more of the other 34 IPS. RR officers of the 1999 Batch apart from the petitioner and the 4th respondent, might be affected. The petitioner was therefore required to have impleaded all the candidates in the 1999 batch of IPS. RR officers as party respondents both to the OA as well as to this writ petition. He has not done so. On this count also no relief could be granted to the petitioner. ( 24 ) THE allocation of the petitioner to the manipur-Tripura cadre was intimated by the 1 st respondent in the offer of appointment letter dated 21-10-1999. By the notification dated 20-10-1999 the various officers of the 1999 batch were allocated to various State cadres. The petitioner filed the OA in the year 2001. As on date, nearly 5 years have passed by and the various officers would have undergone attachment training in the various State or Joint cadres to which they were allotted in 1999. Such attachment training is an integral part of the training process of the IPS probationers. Wholesale or extensive review of the cadre allocation in the circumstances would not be conducive to public interest. ( 25 ) IN the facts and circumstances and on the analysis above, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench, rejecting OA No. 155 of 2001, suffers from no infirmity and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs however.