C M THRI VIKRAMA VARMA Vs. AVINASH MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution are against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 22.03.2007 in Writ Petition No. 458 of 2007.

(2.) The facts very briefly are that in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, Avinash Mohanty and Vikrama Varma amongst others were selected for appointment to the Indian Police Service (for short 'the IPS') and were offered appointments to the IPS in 2005. By notification dated 19.01.2006 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the candidates who had been selected and appointed to the IPS on the basis of the results of the Civil Services Examination, 2004 were allocated to different State cadres. By this notification, Avinash Mohanty, who had secured the 45th rank in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 was allocated to the Chhattisgarh cadre, whereas Vikrama Varma, who had secured 201st rank in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 was allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. Avinash Mohanty made representations to the authorities against his allotment to the Chhattisgarh cadre and claimed that he should have been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. When his representations did not yield any results, Avinash Mohanty filed O.A. No. 286 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') on 03.05.2006 contending that the guidelines and norms in the letter dated 31.05.1985 of the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training (for short 'the letter dated 31.05.1985') have not been followed while making the allocations and the allocation of Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre was arbitrary and in his place he should have been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. After considering the pleadings of the parties and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal by its order dated 24.11.2006 dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved, Avinash Mohanty filed Writ Petition No. 458 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the allocation of the Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre and directed the Union of India to reconsider the allocation of Avinash Mohanty and Vikrama Varma in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for Vikrama Varma, the appellant in C.A. No. 2550 of 2010, submitted that this Court in Union of India vs. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Others, 1994 6 SCC 38 while considering the allocation of officers appointed to the Indian Administrative Services (for short 'the IAS') has held that under Rule 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the Central Government is under no obligation to have options or preferences from the officers concerned and this Rule made the Central Government the sole authority to allocate the members of the service to various cadres and therefore a person appointed to an All India Service, having various State cadres, has no right to claim allocation to a State of his choice or to his home State. He submitted that this position of law has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India vs. Mhathung Kithan and Others, etc., 1996 10 SCC 562. He also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Srinivas Rao vs. Union of India & Ors., 2005 2 ALT 728 which, while referring to the law laid down in Union of India vs. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Others, 1994 6 SCC 38 , has further observed that the Union of India was required to operationalise a plurality of Government choices in the matter of allocation of officers to different State cadres and in the very nature of things, it is not always possible to fulfill all the policy objectives of Union of India in every factual circumstance and in every recruitment year. He also referred to the observations made in the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Srinivas Rao vs. Union of India & Ors., 2005 2 ALT 728 that considering the complexities of accommodating the multitude of federal policy choices, allocation is a daunting task and there are no ready solutions which can perfectly be tailored to fit such complex problems. Considering all these multiple factors which have to be kept in mind while making the allocations of members of the IPS to different cadres, the High Court in the present case should not have quashed the allocation of Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. He submitted that the main reason given by the High Court in the impugned judgment is that in the current roster (3rd Cycle) already nine OBC candidates had been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre before the allocation of Vikrama Varma, who was an OBC candidate, and allocation of Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre would make a total of ten OBC candidates in the 30 point roster which was 6% excess over the 27% reservation in favour of OBC candidates. He submitted that this Court has held in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Others, 1994 6 SCC 38 that allocation is not to be tested by the reservation provision under Article 16(4) of the Constituion and therefore 27% reservation in favour of OBC candidates was not relevant in the matter of allocation and the reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned judgment is erroneous.