LexC.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA versus AVINASH MOHANTY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 212 A C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA B v. AVINASH MOHANTY AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2010) JULY 12, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954: C rr.3, 5 -Allocation of members of the /PS to home State cadre - Respondent challenged allocation of appellant, an OBC candidate to State cadre on the ground that it was arbitrary and in place of appellant, respondent should have been allocated to the State cadre - High Court quashing the allocation of appellant to State cadre with direction to Union D of India to reconsider a/location of respondent and appellant in accordance with law - Correctness of - Held: Co"ect - Broad principles to be followed for allocation are indicated in Para 3 of the fetter dated 31.05.1985 issued by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training - A E reading of Para 3 states that vacancies in every cadre are required to be earmarked for outsiders and insiders in the ratio of 2: 1 - The purpose of the principles of allocation in the letter is not only to implement the policy having 2 outsiders and 1 insider in each cadre, but also to ensure that general and F reserved candidates selected and appointed to the All India · Service get a fair and just treatment in the matter of a/location to different cadres - This is clear from clause (2) and also clause (3) which states that the allocation of insiders, both men and women, has to be strictly according to their ranks, subject G to their willingness to be allocated to their home States - Admittedly, respondent had secured a higher rank than the appellant in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 and both were insiders - Therefore, respondent was required to be considered for allocation to the State cadre if he had given H 212 --- -.... C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 213 ANO ORS. his. willingness for being allocated .to his home State, Andhra . A Pradesh, before ·the.· appellant could be considered for such allocation - If, however, the vacancy for which consideration was being made was a vacancy for an insider OBC candidate in the 30· point roster, the appellant would have preference over respondent. . B Constitution of India, 1950: . . . Articles 14 and 16(1) - Held: A member appointed to the All India Service has no right to be allocated to a particular State cadre or Joint cadre, but he has a right to a fair and C equitable treatment in the matter of allocation under.Articles 14 and ·16(1) of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 16(1) - Held: Complexity of a decision making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is o made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated - When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have tojustify their decision by placing the relevant material before the Court - The constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the rule E of law - However, its reach is limited because its primary concern is not with the content of the law but with its enforcement and application - The rule of law is satisfied when laws are applied or enforced equally, that is, even-handedly, free of bias and without irrational distinction - The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents distinctions F that are not properly justified - Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-case basis. The Civil Services Examination, 2004 was conducted by the UPSC in which 'AM' and 'W' amongst others were G selected for appointment to the Indian Police Service (IPS). They were offered appointments to the IPS in 2005. 'VV' was an OBC candidate. By notification dated 19.1.2006 of the Government of India, the candidates selected and appointed to the IPS on the basis of the H 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A results of the Civil Services Examination, 2004 were allocated to different State cadres. By this notification, 'AM' who had secured 45th rank in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 was allocated to the Chhattisgarh cadre whereas 'VV' who had secured 201st·rank was B allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. 'AM' made representations to the authorities against his allotment to the Chhattisgarh cadre and claimed allocation to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. When he did not receive any response, he filed O.A. before CAT on the C ground that the authorities ought to have foll
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.