UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJIV YADAV IAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE central government is the authority under the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (the Cadre Rules) to allocate the members of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) directly recruited to various State cadres/Joint cadres under the said Rules. THE central government has laid down the broad principles of allocation called "the Roster System". THE said system was earlier operating from 1966 to 1977. THEreafter till 1984 the allocations were done in accordance with the procedure called "THE Limited Zonal Preferences System". Since 1985 batch onwards the central government has reverted back to the "Roster System" with some modifications. Reservation to the extent of 15% and 7 1/2% for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively has been provided <PG>41</PG> indirect recruitment to the IAS. THE "Roster System" provides that while allocating the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates to their home a States (insiders) vacancies shall be reserved for them in various cadres to the extent reservation-percentage has been provided in direct recruitment to the IAS. This reservation in the process of allocation was challenged by Rajiv Yadav, respondent in the appeal herein, before the central Administrative tribunal, New Delhi (the tribunal). A full bench of the tribunal allowed the application of Rajiv Yadav and held that no reservation can be provided for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes while allocating the members of INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE to various cadres. This appeal, by the Union of India is against the judgment of the tribunal.

(2.) RAJIV Yadav appeared in the Civil Services Examination held in 1988. He belongs to the Union Territory of Delhi, and had opted for the "Union Territories" cadre. He was selected for appointment to the INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE and in the order of merit he was placed at serial number 16. By the order dated 28/9/1989 he was allocated to the Manipur and Tripura cadre. His representation for change of cadre from Manipur-Tripura to "Union Territories" having been rejected by the central government, he challenged the order allocating him to the Manipur-Tripura cadre before the tribunal.

(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the tribunal. WE are not inclined to agree with the same. Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules provides that the allocation of the members of the INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE to various cadres shall be made by the central government in consultation with the State government or the State governments concerned. Sub-rule (2 of Rule 5 further provides that a cadre officer can be transferred from one cadre to another. When a person is appointed to an all-India Service, having various State Cadres, he has no right to claim allocation to a <PG>45</PG> State of his choice or to his home State. The central government is under no legal obligation to have options or even preferences from the officer concerned. Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules makes the central government the sole authority to allocate the members of the service to various cadres. It is not obligatory for the central government to frame rules/regulations or otherwise notify "the principles of allocation" adopted by the government as apolicy. The letter dated 31/5/1985 shows that the central government has always been having guidelines either in the shape of "limited zonal preferences system" or "Roster System" for the exercise of its discretion under Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules. Simply because the principles of allocation called "Roster System" were not notified, it is no ground to hold that the same are non est and the central government cannot follow the same. In any case the "Roster System" has stood the test of time. It was operative during the years 1966 to 1977 and again it is being followed from 1985 batch onwards. The fact that the "Roster System" is being followed in practice by the central government for all these years, is in itself a sufficient publication of its principles.