UNION OF INDIA Vs. S SHAINAMOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P1 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.164 of 2008 is under challenge in both these writ petitions, though the nature of grievance is different. The first case -W.P.(C)No.30460 of 2009 is filed by the Union of India/Department, to the extent the first respondent (petitioner in the other case) has been directed to be allotted and accommodated against the Outsider-OBC vacancy slot in the Maharashtra cadre by virtue of her better merits over the candidate already identified and allotted. The challenge in the other petition (W.P.(C)No.9568 of 2010 filed by the applicant) is against non-granting of relief for being allocated to the Kerala cadre by virtue of her merit position and the actual number of vacancies available.

(2.) The main contention raised by the applicant is that determination of vacancies and allocation in the State cadre has been effected by the competent authority without effecting any consultation with the State Government as clearly stipulated under Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954 and Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. It is further pointed out that allocation already effected is highly arbitrary and contrary to the actual facts and figures, without any regard to the existing deficit pointed out by the State concerned; whereas the exercise done by the said authority in respect of some States like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh etc., is by allocating candidates much more than the deficit gap pointed out and even beyond the requisition made by the State, thus making the process illegal, improper, irregular and illogical in all respects.

(3.) W.P(C)No.30460 of 2009 filed by the Government is taken as the lead case. The parties and proceedings are referred to as given in the said writ petition, except where it is separately mentioned, depending upon the context.