RAJESH SUBRAHMANYA KALLAGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 643/2017. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application of the petitioner as being barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal has not examined the merits of the petitioner's claim.

(2.) The petitioner appeared in the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2000 (IFSE). He was selected by the UPSC and allocated Nagaland cadre. The cadre allocation of IFS probationers of 2001 batch was notified contemporaneously. Consequent upon petitioner's marriage with another 2001 batch IFS officer, the petitioner's cadre was changed from Nagaland to Chhattisgarh in the year 2004. After serving in the State of Chhattisgarh for seven years, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Karnataka State on 29.08.2011, which stands extended upto 18.09.2018. The petitioner has been working as Deputy Director, Forest Survey of India, Southern Zone, Bengaluru, since Sept., 2011.

(3.) The petitioner, for the first time, started raising the issue of his being unjustifiably denied the Karnataka cadre at the time of allocation of cadres in 2001, by making representations beginning 06.06.2016. The petitioner claimed that he belonged to the State of Karnataka and he was entitled to be considered as a general category candidate in respect of an insider seat/vacancy meant for general category candidates in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner claimed that the respondent did not consider the petitioner in respect of the said insider seat/vacancy, despite the fact that in his application form, he had indicated his willingness to work in his home State, i.e., the State of Karnataka. He also claimed that as per the cadre allocation policy dated 31.05.1985, by virtue of Rule 3, allocation of insiders had to be made strictly according to the rank and subject to willingness of the candidate to be allocated to his/her home State. Rule 4 of the said policy further states that allocation of outsiders - whether they are general category candidates, or reserved category candidates, would be made according to the roster system after placing the 'insider' at the proper slot. The petitioner claimed that the respondent, instead of granting him his home State, i.e. Karnataka, allocated Nagaland cadre to him. The petitioner claimed that the insider seat/vacancy which should have come to the petitioner was converted to an outsider vacancy and allotted to an outsider OBC candidate, which was contrary to the cadre allocation policy and also caused injustice to him. Since his representations did not bear fruit, he preferred the Original Application.