JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. 1. Present O.P. (CAT) is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.10.2023 rejecting O.A. No.139 of 2020 wherein the following reliefs were claimed: "a. Call for the record leading to the issue of Annexure A7 and A9 and quash the same to the extent they pertain to applicant's allotment to Kerala Cadre. b. Direct the Respondents to consider afresh applicant's claim for allotment of Home Cadre of Karnataka and to cause issue of necessary orders allotting the applicant to her Home cadre of Karnataka with all consequential benefits in the matter of seniority etc. c. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief for adjudication of the controversy are enumerated herein below: Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.04.2008, came out with a Cadre Allocation Policy for All India Services - IAS/IPS/IFS (hereinafter called 'CAP -2008'). As per the aforementioned Office Memorandum, the State Governments were required to indicate the total number of vacancies to be filled through a particular Civil Services Examination by 31 st December of every year, prior to the year of examination. In respect of services under them, the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities, namely, the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT)/Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)/Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) shall determine the vacancies including the break-up into Unreserved (UR)/Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe (ST)/Other Backward Classes (OBC)/ Insider/Outsider vacancies, for each of the cadres as per the established procedure, keeping in view, the number of districts in the State, the cadre gap in the cadre, the requisitions received from the State Government and the position of roster in the Cadre. The vacancies so determined would be communicated to the State Governments and published on the respective Ministry's website. 3. Paragraph No.2 of the aforementioned policy envisaged that a 200-point running vacancy-based- roster showing SC/ST/OBC/UR points shall be maintained for each Cadre properly and would be used for determining the vacancies of various categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR) in each Cadre. The accounting in this roster shall be done on the basis of actual filling of the roster point. 3. Paragraph No.2 of the aforementioned policy envisaged that a 200-point running vacancy-based- roster showing SC/ST/OBC/UR points shall be maintained for each Cadre properly and would be used for determining the vacancies of various categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR) in each Cadre. The accounting in this roster shall be done on the basis of actual filling of the roster point. This roster for each of the Cadres may be initialized by adjusting the recruitments done since the Civil Service Examination -1994. 4. The purpose of maintaining the aforesaid roster at the level of the Cadres is to ensure equitable representation to various categories and not to exactly implement the policy of reservation per se at the level of the Cadre. 5. Paragraph No.4 of the aforementioned policy had been a point of ponderance by the department in rejecting the representation, as well in bits and pieces by the Tribunal, much less agitated and relied upon by both the parties. Therefore, the same is extracted hereinbelow: "4. The insider and outsider vacancies in a cadre shall be determined on the basis of the insider-outsider roster with points as follows: O-I-O-O-I-O and so on so as to facilitate the maintenance of the ratio of 1:2 between the insiders and the outsiders. It is, however, clarified that depending on the actual filling of the insider vacancies, the ratio between insiders and outsiders in a cadre at any point of time may, however, be less than 1: 2. There would be the following insider- outsider rosters for each cadre. first, for determining the total insiders and outsiders vacancies in the cadre; second, for determining the OBC insider/outsider vacancies and the SC/ST insider/outsider vacancies and third, for determining SC insider/outsider vacancies and ST insider/outsider vacancies. In the first step, the total Insider/outsider vacancies in a cadre shall be determined on the basis of the first roster for the cadre. In the second step, the OBC Insider/outsider vacancies and the SC/ST (as one block) Insider/outsider vacancies shall be determined on the basis of the second roster for the cadre. And in the last step, the SC Insider/outsider vacancies and the ST insider/outsider vacancies shall be determined on the basis of the third roster for the cadre. The UR insider/outsider vacancies for the cadre shall be determined by subtracting the total reserved insider and the total reserved outsider vacancies from the total Insider vacancies and the total outsider vacancies respectively. And in the last step, the SC Insider/outsider vacancies and the ST insider/outsider vacancies shall be determined on the basis of the third roster for the cadre. The UR insider/outsider vacancies for the cadre shall be determined by subtracting the total reserved insider and the total reserved outsider vacancies from the total Insider vacancies and the total outsider vacancies respectively. The accounting in the rosters (for total vacancies as well as category-wise vacancies) shall be on the basis of actual filling." 6. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the Insider and Outsider vacancies in a Cadre shall be determined on the basis of Insider - Outsider roster with points as follows; O-I-O-O-I-O (Outsider -Insider - Outsider - Outsider - Insider - Outsider) and so on. However, the following Insider - Outsider roster for each cadre was fixed : (i) First, for determining the total Insiders and Outsiders vacancies in the cadre; (ii) Second, for determining the OBC insider/outsider vacancies and the SC/ST insider/outsider vacancies; (iii) Third, for determining SC insider/outsider vacancies and ST insider/outsider vacancies. In the first step, the total insider/outsider vacancies in a cadre shall be determined on the basis of the first roster for the Cadre and in the second step, the OBC insider/outsider vacancies and SC/ST (as one block) insider/outsider vacancies shall be determined on the basis of second roster for the Cadre and in the last step (emphasis supplied), the SC Insider/Outsider vacancies and the ST insider/outsider vacancies shall be determined on the basis of third roster for the cadre. The aforementioned mantra of Outsider -Insider - Outsider - Outsider - Insider - Outsider has been followed by the respondents religiously from 2011 onwards. However, for the year 2015, the period involved in this case, it was not done so. 7. In order to determine the applicability of aforementioned mantra, it would be axiomatic to give narration of facts and disputes involved in the present case. Petitioner – applicant, a lady officer belonging to schedule category, is a native of Karnataka state and an Insider there. On the basis of her performance in the Civil Service Examination held in 2015, secured 745 th rank in the examination and was selected as an IPS Officer. But, was allotted to the Kerala Cadre as an 'Outsider'. Petitioner – applicant, a lady officer belonging to schedule category, is a native of Karnataka state and an Insider there. On the basis of her performance in the Civil Service Examination held in 2015, secured 745 th rank in the examination and was selected as an IPS Officer. But, was allotted to the Kerala Cadre as an 'Outsider'. The grievance raised by her before the Tribunal, in pursuance of the prayer extracted above, was that she was denied local Cadre of Karnataka as the respondents did not follow the mantra as culled in the CAP-2008. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in the earlier round of litigation, petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench vide O.A.No.475 of 2017 aggrieved of the rejection of the representation. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.07.2019 disposed of the aforementioned O.A. with the following directions: "6. We, however, without issuing notice, quash the order under Annex.A-I and remand the matter back to Respondent No.1 with a direction to consider the representation so preferred under Annex. A-4 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and communicate the result within one week thereafter. 7. We also made it clear that although the applicant is already functioning as an IPS officer in Kerala, still then after such consideration, if the applicant's claim is found to be genuine, expeditious steps may be taken to re-allocate her cadre to Karnataka. 8. With the above observations, the O.A. stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As prayed by Sri.Siva, a copy of this order along with the paper book and all its annexures be transmitted to Respondent No.1 by speed post for which he undertakes to pay the costs by 22.07.2019" The reason for disposing of aforementioned O.A. was on the ground that the order rejecting the representation was non speaking and unreasoned. 9. On reconsideration of the matter, the competent authority i.e, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Department of Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 05.09.2019 rejected the representation. This order was impugned and assailed in the subsequent O.A.No.139 of 2020. 9. On reconsideration of the matter, the competent authority i.e, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Department of Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 05.09.2019 rejected the representation. This order was impugned and assailed in the subsequent O.A.No.139 of 2020. The main ground for challenging the aforementioned order before the Tribunal was that, as per the impugned order dated 05.09.2019, the stand of the Government was that, since there was no "Insider vacancy" in the SC category, the petitioner - applicant could not be considered for allocation to her Home State. Since, no candidate can be allocated to his or her Home State against the Outsider vacancy, even though, two(2) SC Outsider quota was shown in the quota allocation, applicant could not be accommodated against anyone of those two vacancies. Assailing the aforementioned finding, it was urged that the aforementioned stand was not only misleading but factually incorrect for the reason that the respondents from the year 2011 till 2017, and 2015 being the disputed year, had been religiously following the mantra as indicated above. But for the year 2015, did not consider the number of vacancy for an Insider under SC category and kept two(2) vacancies for an Outsider defying the practice and procedure being followed strictly in terms of the CAP-2008. In this regard, had carved out a chart for facilitation of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The same reads as under: Table showing the Insider/Outsider quota in respect of Karnataka cadre starting from Civil Service examination 2011 CSE Year No. of vacancies Insider Outsider UR OBC SC ST GEN OBC SC ST 2011 07 - 01 - 01 01 02 - 02 2012 07 02 01 - - 02 01 01 - 2013 06 02 - - - 02 02 - - 2014 06 - 01 01 - 01 02 01 - 2015* 07 02 01 - - 02 - 02 - 2016 06 02 - - - 01 02 01 - 2017 06 - 01 01 - 03 - 01 - The above Chart clearly demonstrate that allotment of Insider/Outsider quota under SC category is not in conformity with the procedure laid down in paragraph 4 of the CAP OM dated 10.04.2008 which states that Insider/Outsider roster has to be maintained with points as: Outsider-Insider-Outsider- Outsider-Insider-Outsider and so on." 10. Another point raised was that the shifting of one(1) SC Outsider vacancy of Telengana Cadre to Manipur had also deprived her scope of getting the Cadre allotment to Telengana state, in terms of her second preference. 11. Ministry of Home Affairs filed a reply statement and reiterated the stand taken in the order impugned before the Tribunal, Annexure - A7 dated 05.09.2019 and as far as allocation made in Telengana cadre was concerned, submitted that the provision of Cadre Allocation Policy in vogue provided that no Insider Unreserved candidate was available against an Insider Unreserved vacancy available in the Cadre but Insider SC/ST/OBC candidates were available, such senior most ST candidates (failing which the other senior most SC candidate and such senior most OBC candidate in that order) would be adjusted by shifting out the Unreserved Insider vacancy to the next Cadre in alphabetical order having an Outsider vacancy in that category and bringing an Outsider vacancy of that category from that Cadre and gave the chart for distribution of Manipur Cadre. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has given up the argument with regard to the second preference given by her and had only confined to the prayer for not allocating the Karnatka Cadre being an Insider. Learned Tribunal, till paragraph No.14, referred to the facts as well as what has been noted in Annexure - A7 and from paragraph No.15 of the order under challenge, dealt with the contention of the petitioner till Paragraph No.18. 12. Paragraph No.19 dealt with the allocation in Telengana state which is not relevant. Again from paragraph No.20 to paragraph No.21, dealt with the reasoning given in the impugned order, Ext.A7. However, from paragraph No.22 to paragraph No.25, gave the following findings. The same is extracted herein below: 22. Having brought out all the differing contentions of the two sides in detail above, we may acknowledge at the outset that Cadre Allocation Policy for All India Services is a fairly complex exercise which has to take into account numerous factors as have been outlined. However, the allocation exercise is now done on the basis of a clear and specific policy governing the same unlike the earlier opacity which was in existence for decades. However, the allocation exercise is now done on the basis of a clear and specific policy governing the same unlike the earlier opacity which was in existence for decades. It does not appear to us after a detailed examination of Annexure A7 orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the explanations provided in the reply statement that there have been errors committed by the respondents which run counter to the provisions of CAP 2008, which was the policy in operation at the relevant point of time, when the allocation of cadres was made consequent to the result of the Civil Services Examination 2015 in which the applicant had qualified. Nor, as we have noted, has the applicant brought out in any substantial or significant or specific way any details by which the finer points of the policy were in any way not followed by the respondents and that they erred in giving her the allotment of Kerala cadre. It is also to be noted that Kerala did appear in her list of preferences for cadres in the IPS at the 5th position. There is nothing to establish that she was discriminated against in any way while being allotted the Kerala cadre under the CAP.. 23. We note that the respondents have brought out in very great detail in the Annexure A7 order all the relevant considerations in this connection. They have indicated that at any specific point of time, while the percentage of officers for each category for each cadre may not be exactly at the required level, the overall reservation would be maintained at the national level. The allocation and representation of officers in a specific cadre would depend on various factors such as vacancy, merit position, availability etc., and can vary at a specific point of time. However, as repeatedly stated, over the period of filling a 200 point roster, it is expected that the required reservation percentage would be fulfilled. These contentions and justifications of the respondents appear to be reasonable and acceptable. On the other hand, the applicant has only gone by the broad insider-outsider allocation formula, which is part of the CAP at paragraph 4, without getting into the other details in the CAP in relation to the operation of the 200 point roster and allocation of candidates as shown at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the CAP. On the other hand, the applicant has only gone by the broad insider-outsider allocation formula, which is part of the CAP at paragraph 4, without getting into the other details in the CAP in relation to the operation of the 200 point roster and allocation of candidates as shown at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the CAP. Overall we do not find that her arguments in the O.A have specifically countered the points which have been made in the Annexure A7 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs. 24. We also find on the other hand that the respondents have tried to meet her requirements to the extent possible by giving her one of her choices, by allocating Kerala as her cadre. 25. In view of the above considerations, we do not find that any case has been made for us to intervene in the O.A, in favour of the applicant. We do not therefore find in favour of the applicant. The O.A thus fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs." 13. On perusal of the same, the learned Tribunal noticed that CAP is a complex exercise which has to take into account, numerous factors and it did not appear to the Tribunal, after detailed examination of the impugned order that, the order of Ministry of Home Affairs as well as explanation provided in the reply statement, there had been errors committed by the respondents running counter to the provisions of CAP-2008. It was noted that nor the applicant had brought out any substantial or significant or specific way any details by which the final points of policy were in any way not followed by the respondents in not giving her allotment of Kerala Cadre as it did not appear in her list of preferences. It was further observed in paragraph No.23 that, respondents have brought out in very great detail in the Annexure - A7 order all relevant considerations in this connection and to establish it abided Insider-Outsider allocation formula being a part of the CAP, without any getting in to the details in the CAP in relation to the operation of 200 point roster and allocation of candidates as shown in paragraph No.7 and 8 of the CAP. It is in that background, the present O.P.(CAT) has been preferred before us. 14. It is in that background, the present O.P.(CAT) has been preferred before us. 14. Sri.T.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant - petitioner submitted that as per the Cadre allocation dated 10.04.2008, petitioner had submitted her preference of five States, in the order of preference; I. Karnataka home state II. Telengana III. Andhrapradesh IV. Tamil Nadu V. Kerala. 15. Learned Tribunal in the entire judgment has failed to address the Cadre allocation chart Annexure-A6 from the year 2011 to 2017, prepared as per Annexure-A1 Cadre Allocation Policy dated 10.04.2008 as well as dealing with the distribution of vacancies among the Cadres in respective years i.e., against an Outsider - Insider - Outsider - Outsider - Insider - Outsider (O-I-O-O-I-O). The existing 200 point roster of Karnataka starting from 1994 Civil Services Examination to 2014 Civil Services Examination (year of the allotment 2015) clearly shows that total of 104 IPS officers were allotted to Karnataka as per the notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms as on 01.03.2017. As per the roster, sixteen(16) SC candidates ought to have been appointed in Karnataka IPS Cadre. However, only thirteen(13) have been allotted as culled out from the reasoning given in paragraph No.20. In other words, the ratio 1:2 between Insiders and Outsiders has not been followed. 16. Annexure - A6 chart provided by the Government of India clearly shows the manner in which CAP was undone by some officials, which is a self explanatory. It was further contended that though it is the prerogative of the Government to allot the respective cadre, the same could not be in violation of CAP. The Central Administrative Tribunal, instead of directing the Government to strictly implement the CAP and reallocate the cadre of the petitioner, in the most mechanical and erroneous manner, dismissed the original application. Therefore, there is an abdication. It was further contended that in paragraph No.19 of the impugned order, learned Tribunal had already expressed the opinion by observing as under: "Before we going to further details of the reply statement filed by the respondents, we note at the outset that the detailed contentions of the Government brought out at Annexure-A7 do not appear to have been adequately addressed by the applicant in O.A." 17. As per the 2015 Civil Services Examination, out of two(2) SC vacancies, one(1) vacancy should have been given to the Insider quota and one(1) to the Outside quota. But both have been allotted to the Outside quota in gross violation of roster. However, no such mention is made to the total vacancy position and the caste based allotment in the impugned order Annexure-A7. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 , which has been followed subsequently by the Supreme Court in C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Avinash Mohanty and Others, 2011 KHC 4607 : (2011) 7 SCC 385 , wherein it has been categorically stated that the citizen can always express the grievance if there is a violation of fundamental right of equality. Complexity of the decision making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court, invoking the fundamental right of equality. An application of roster in allocation of IPS officers shall ensure equitable treatment to all. Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate the specific points put-forth by the petitioner as she is the only SC Lady IPS Officer from Karnataka till date and has been denied an insider posting in the Karnataka Cadre. 18. On the Contrary, A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned ASGI assisted by Sri.C.Dinesh, Deputy Solicitor in charge rebutted the aforementioned arguments by relying upon the CAP and the findings recorded in paragraph Nos.14 to 16 and 19 and 20. It was contended that percentage of SC category from the year 1994-2014, out of total 99 recruitments, 14 SC candidates have been recruited in Karnataka Cadre making it a total of 14.14% which is indicative of the fact that the total recruitment covers the first 100 point of roster, the recruitment in the SC category would be 15 and when the recruitment would cover all the 200 points, the recruitment in SC category would be 30 i.e., overall 15% which is the exact prescribed percentage of reservation for SC category and similar analogy is applicable for all the categories. Since there was no candidate in the SC category lower in rank than that of the petitioner-applicant, the SC vacancy was allocated to a cadre against an outsider of Telengana, the person who was given cadre of Karanataka had lower rank of 69 as compared to the applicant 745 (outsider) and in Telengana, have been lower than the petitioner ie., 720 and 745. It was also contended that as per Annexure - A6, the cadre allotment chart for Civil Services Examination for the year 2013 and 2014, similar policy of keeping two(2) Outsiders under the OBC category was done in Karnataka and also in 2014 in Jharkhand and Karanaka under the OBC category, but nobody had challenged the same and therefore, there could not be any grievance on behalf of the petitioner. There was no deviation in the distribution of the vacancies for 2015, as it was strictly as per the CAP. Another argument was also raised that there is no challenge to the action of the respondent in not following the roster point as per CAP policy much less in case this court finds substance in the argument of the petitioner – applicant, the affected candidate has not been an impleaded party. 19. In rebuttal Sri.Sanjay pointed out that the genesis of reasoning given in the impugned order is by taking into consideration the SC category from 1994 whereas the CAP came into force only in 2008. Thus the department was required to follow the mantra as culled out in 2008 policy for subsequent examinations and not prior thereof. There would be no affected party as petitioner falls in seven vacancies given in Kerala Cadre and secondly, there has been a categoric challenge in ground No.5.1(c) and 5.1(d) of the OA. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 21. We have already extracted paragraph No.4 of the CAP, Annexure - A1. However, we would be failing in our duty in not extracting the formula for filling up the insider vacancy belonging to particular category, if the candidate is not available. The same reads as under: 7. The following shall be the formula for filling up of an insider vacancy belonging to a particular category for which a candidate is not available. However, we would be failing in our duty in not extracting the formula for filling up the insider vacancy belonging to particular category, if the candidate is not available. The same reads as under: 7. The following shall be the formula for filling up of an insider vacancy belonging to a particular category for which a candidate is not available. a. When no candidate is available against an Insider SC vacancy in a Cadre, the same shall be filled up by bringing in the senior most insider officer available in the merit list of ST candidates (failing which in the merit list of OBC candidates and in the merit list of the Unreserved candidates in that order) and shifting the SC vacancy of the Cadre to the cadre to which the incoming officer would have normally been allotted against the available outsider vacancy in his category (failing which to the next cadre in alphabetical order in which the outsider vacancy is available). b. When no candidate is available against an Insider ST vacancy in a Cadre, the same shall be filled up by bringing in the senior most insider officer available in the merit list of SC candidates (failing which in the merit list OBC list and in the merit list of the Unreserved candidates in that order) and shifting the ST vacancy of the Cadre, to the cadre to which the Incoming officer would have normally been allotted against the available outsider vacancy in his category (failing which to the next cadre in alphabetical order in which the outsider vacancy is available). C. When no candidate is available against an Insider OBC vacancy in a Cadre, the same shall be filled up by bringing in the senior most insider officer available in the merit list of ST candidates (failing which in the merit list of SC candidates and in the merit list of the Unreserved candidates in that order) and shifting the OBC vacancy of the Cadre to the cadre to which the incoming officer would have normally been allotted against the available outsider vacancy in his category (failing which to the next cadre in alphabetical order in which the outsider vacancy is available). Provided that in every such case listed in clause (a), (b) and (c) above, il insider-physically-disabled- candidate(s) of the relevant community is/are available, such physically disabled candidate (senior most in the merit list) shall be so adjusted. In other words, a physically disabled candidate would have a higher claim for being adjusted as compared with non-physically disabled candidates of his community. d. When no insider unreserved candidate is available against an Insider Unreserved vacancy available in a Cadre but insider SC/ST/OBC candidate(s) is/are available, such senior most ST candidate (failing which such senior most SC candidate and such senior most OBC candidate in that order) shall be adjusted by shifting out the Unreserved insider vacancy to the next cadre in alphabetical order having outsider vacancy in that category and bringing in an Outsider vacancy of that category from that cadre. 22. On plain and simple perusal of the same, it is evident that when no candidate is available, the same shall be filled up by bringing in the senior most Insider officer available in the merit list of ST candidates, falling which in the merit list of OBC candidates and in the merit list of Unreserved candidates. We have been taken to the vacancy distribution of Civil Service Examination for the years 2011- 2012-2013-2014 and 2015 in question and subsequently in 2016, 2017 etc. 23. Till 2011, the number of vacancies for Karnataka were seven(7). There was none under the ‘Insider’, the details of which are given below: Year of allotment Total Number of vacancies SC Total vacancies Distribution Insider Outsider 2011 7 NIL - - 2012 7 1 - 1 2013 6 NIL - - 2014 6 2 1 1 2015 7 2 - 2 2016 6 1 - 1 2017 6 2 1 1 24. On perusal of the same, the allocation of the mantra for the respective year should have been followed as under , as per the contention of the petitioner. O I O O I O 2012(1) 1 2014(2) 1 2014 1 2015(2) 1 2015 1 2016(1) 1 2017(2) 1 2014 1 25. But the respondents have, for 2015, followed as under: O I O O I O 2012(1) 1 2014(2) 1 2014 1 2015(2) 1 2015 1 2016(1) 1 2017(2) 1 2017 1 26. O I O O I O 2012(1) 1 2014(2) 1 2014 1 2015(2) 1 2015 1 2016(1) 1 2017(2) 1 2014 1 25. But the respondents have, for 2015, followed as under: O I O O I O 2012(1) 1 2014(2) 1 2014 1 2015(2) 1 2015 1 2016(1) 1 2017(2) 1 2017 1 26. Even in 2016 also, one(1) SC vacancy,it should have been one(1) Insider, but one(1) Outsider has been allocated and for 2017, two(2) SC whereas it should have been two(2) Outsiders but allotted one(1) Insider and one(1) Outsider. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, no explanation has come forth in not following the said mantra for 2015 distribution. 27. No doubt, for two distribution years, as indicated in Annexure-A6 for the year 2013 and 2014, for Jharkhand and Karnataka distribution, the respondent had not followed the mantra for OBC category. But the fact remains that once it has gone unnoticed, the error committed by the respondent cannot be ignored from the judicial scrutiny. In other words, even if some person was satisfied and had not taken legal recourse, the fallacy committed by the respondent cannot be deemed to have been condoned. We are unable to fathom the reasoning assigned in paragraph No.20 of the impugned order Annexure-A7 as to how the percentage of 14.14 has been taken by following the 100 roster point from 1994 to 2014, whereas the CAP came into force only in 2008. In other words, in case the same analogy is accepted by taking 200 roster point from 2008 subsequent to the CAP, as per the roster, sixteen(16) SC candidates ought to have been appointed in Karnataka IPS Cadre, but only thirteen(13) have been allocated. No reasoning or justification has come forth either in the impugned order or in the reply which is verbatim of the impugned order Annexure - A7. 28. Central Administrative Tribunal was established to lessen the burden of the High Court in litigation pertaining to Central Government employees by nominating one(1) judicial and administrative members. No reasoning or justification has come forth either in the impugned order or in the reply which is verbatim of the impugned order Annexure - A7. 28. Central Administrative Tribunal was established to lessen the burden of the High Court in litigation pertaining to Central Government employees by nominating one(1) judicial and administrative members. The judgment under challenge has been though rendered by the Administrative member, the manner and mode which has been passed as noticed by us in the preceding paragraph and relevant portion extracted, has not been upto the judicial standards, as it lacks not only the reasons but cogent, for, there has been no ponderance and deliberation on the distribution of seats as emphatically raised by relying upon Annexure-A6 and the taken ground 5.1(c) and 5.1(d). Therefore, the objection of not challenging the proper mantra for distribution of seats in 2015 pales into insignificance. 29. As regards to the non impleadment of affected party, we cannot remain unmindful of the fact that for the year 2015, there were seven(7) vacancies. Petitioner also figures in those seven vacancies but have been allocated in a different Cadre and the ministerial and administrative work in case the applicant - petitioner granted the wrong Cadre being an Insider and only lady SC candidate, there would be no increase in the number of seats nor any candidate would be affected. It is settled law that a person who is aggrieved of being violated of his/her fundamental right of equality, can always agitate the issue in a competent court of law as per the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagraj (supra), for, the constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the rule of law. Though its reach is limited because of its primary concern is not with the contour of law but with its enforcement and application. The concept of equality does not permit differential treatment but it prevents distinction that are not properly justified. Justification in each case needs to be decided on case to cases. 30. Accordingly, we quash the order of Central Administrative Tribunal as well as impugned order Annexure-A7 and direct that the petitioner-applicant should be granted the Karnataka cadre, being the only Insider IPS officer, as it would not have any cascading effect on the service of other parties alleged to be affected at the behest of the respondent. 30. Accordingly, we quash the order of Central Administrative Tribunal as well as impugned order Annexure-A7 and direct that the petitioner-applicant should be granted the Karnataka cadre, being the only Insider IPS officer, as it would not have any cascading effect on the service of other parties alleged to be affected at the behest of the respondent. Let the exercise be taken as expeditiously as possible, not later than two(2) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.