UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS AND ANR

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 22-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
v.
MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS AND ANR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11480-81 of 2018)
OCTOBER 22, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law: All India Service – Appellant was candidate
seeking appointment to All India Service pursuant to Civil Services
Examination-2006 – She was successful and her name appeared at
serial no.20 – Applicant, though an OBC candidate, came on
general merit without resorting to the relaxed standard for the
candidates belonging to OBC – She was allotted Himachal Pradesh
Cadre after the consent of Himachal Pradesh Government –
Applicant filed O.A. before CAT (Tribunal) – The grievance of the
applicant was that she had a better merit than candidate-Merit No.
26 who was allocated the Maharashtra cadre as an OBC candidate
and, therefore, she should have been allocated the Maharashtra
cadre – Tribunal directed the Union of India to allot and
accommodate the applicant against the outsider OBC vacancy in
the Maharashtra Cadre by virtue of her merit over the candidate
already identified and allotted the Maharashtra Cadre – The Union
and the applicant aggrieved against the said order filed writ
petitions before the High Court – High Court held that five admitted
deficit vacancies were required to be filled up by following the
outsider-insider ratio in the given cycle of 30-point roster, then there
would be an insider vacancy, to be given either to the SC/ST or the
OBC – Since there was no SC/ST candidate, it had to be filled up by
insider OBC, i.e., the applicant – On appeal, held: High Court has
completely misread the statutory rules and the policy of allocation
of cadre – The Union had prescribed a procedure to be followed in
the allotment of cadre to the officers of All India Services on
30.07.1984 – All the cadres/joint cadres were divided into four
groups and the 24 States were arranged in alphabetical order –
Later, another procedure was circulated on 30/31.05.1985 – It is
the said allocation circular which was in force at the time of cadre
allocation for the year 2007 – Maharashtra, Manipur-Tripura,
Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Sikkim fell in Group III
396
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 396
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
whereas Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir,
Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh fell in Group II – The
applicant was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh and there
was a consent duly given by the State of Himachal Pradesh for her
allocation to that State – Therefore, mandate of r.5(1) of the Cadre
Rules is satisfied when consultation was made with the State to which
allocation was made – Applicant claimed allocation to the State of
Kerala, i.e., her home cadre – There were 4 senior candidates in
the general category – She was on merit as a general category
candidate, having not availed any of the relaxed standards meant
for a candidate of OBC category – In terms of proviso to r.7(3) of
the Recruitment Rules and the proviso to clause 16(1) in the
notification inviting applications for CSE-2006, the candidates
including the applicant were put to notice, that SC/ST or OBC
candidates will be treated as General Category Candidates who
have not availed any concession or relaxation – Applicant was thus
rightly treated as General Category candidate – In terms of Clause
16(2) of the CSE-2006 notification, the candidates belonging to
the SC/ST or OBC recommended against unreserved vacancies may
be adjusted against reserved vacancies by the Government, if by
this process they get a service of higher choice in the order of their
preference – The applicant was already allocated IAS as there was
no question of change of service – Therefore, as a general category
candidate, there was no occasion for consultation with State of
Kerala as the applicant was not even eligible to be considered for
allocation to the said State in terms of the allocation order – The
reasoning given by the High Court that there was cadre deficiency,
therefore, the applicant was entitled to be allocated is bereft of any
merit – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction to order allocation of
Kerala Cadre to the applicant without examining the policy decision
of the Union to fill up only 89 vacancies – High Court again erred
in law that an OBC candidate, who has not availed relaxation or
concession, had to be treated as general category candidate –
Candidate-Merit No.26 was the first OBC candidate who had availed
concessions or relaxation

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.