UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31 -3 -2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench allowing the application of respondent No. 1 quashing the order dated 7 -5 2003, passed by the petitioner Union of India, allotting the respondent No. 1 -an I.P.S. Officer, Uttaranchal Cadre.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, in this case appeared in Civil Service Examination 2000 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and both of them were declared successful in merit list prepared by the said Commission. The name of the respondent No. 1 was placed at Sl. No. 62 and the respondent No. 3 was placed at Sl. No. 16. The said respondent No. 3 belonged to reserved category of OBC. In the State of U.P. there were only two vacancies. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were insider candidates. Out of the two vacancies one had already been filled up by one Tarun Gauba as an outsider candidate. Thus, only one vacancy remained available for insider candidate and it was allocated to the respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved and dis -satisfied respondent No. 1 filed Original Application No. 1341 of 2001 before the respondent No. 2 Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench on the ground that the said vacancy was meant for general category candidate, and respondent No. 3 had wrongly been allocated. The Tribunal adjudicated upon the issue and allowed the said application vide judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2002 (Annexure 10) holding that the said vacancy was meant to be filled up from general category candidates and not from reserved category of OBC, and thus was wrongly allocated to the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 -applicant being better in ranking, was entitled for allocation of U.P. Cadre. Thus, it quashed the impugned order dated 25 -9 -2001 of allocation and notification dated 24 -9 -2001 only to that extent and the petitioner -Union of India was directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observation made therein.

(3.) SHRI Bhopendra Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of allocation made by the learned Tribunal runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav, (1994)6 SCC 38, wherein, it has been held that the selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment, but has no right to be allocated to the cadre of his choice or to his home State. The allotment of cadre is an incident of service and a member of an All India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India. Thus in view of the above, the Central Government is the sole authority to allocate the cadre. Thus, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.