LexUNION OF INDIA versus MHATHUNG KITHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNION OF INDIA
v.
MHATHUNG KITHAN AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
B
[AM. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.)
c
Se1Vice Law:
Indian Administrative Se1Vice (Cadre) Rules-Rule 5.
Cadre allocation-Insider vacancy-Non-availability of Insider-Cany-
f01ward--Pennissibility of-Policy dated 30. 7. I984 required at least 662/3%
of directly recmited Officers from outside State concemed--Held : did not
impose ceiling of 66.2/3o/u-Hence, in absence of any mle, filling up of insider
vacancy by outside due to non-availability of insider not a ground to accom-
D modate insider in outsider vacancy in subsequent year.
Respondent No. 1 was appointed to the Indian Administrative Ser-
vice and was allocated to a state different from his home State. There were
two seats which were available for the home State of respondent No. 1.
However, both these seats were earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point
E roster under a policy dated 30.7.1984 of the appellant-Union in which the
"outsider" element in the direct recruitment quota was raised to 66.2/3%.
Respondent No. 1 challenged his allocation before the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal which directed the appellant to consider transfer of respon·
dent No. 1 from his present State to his home State. Being aggrieved the
F
appellant-Union preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of respondent No. 1 it was contended that in the previous
batch when the vacancy was for an insider since no insider was available,
the vacancy was occupied by an outsider; and that respondent No. 1 should
be considered for one of the roster points available for his batch in the
G subsequent year.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. In the light of the Policy dated 30.7.1984 a continuous
30 point roster was provided. The roster follows the cycle, "outsider,
H insider, outsider, outsider, insider, outsider •••••.. .". In any given year the
486
U.O.I. v. MHAIBUNG KITH.AN [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.)
487
roster starts with the point where the roster ended in the previous year. A
In the case of the State cadre for the home State of respondent No. 1 there
were two vacancies for allocation to his batch. As per the 30 point roster,
both these vacancies were for outsiders. Hence the first respondent, being
an "insider", was not eligible for either of the two vacancies. He was,
therefore, allotted to a different State. (489-B-D]
B
1.2. There is no rule which provides for a carry-over of "insider"
vacancies if they are not filled due to non- availability of insider candidates.
In the absence of any such rule for carry-forward of insider vacancies, is not
possible to accommodate respondent No. 1 in the vacancies which are
earmarked for outsiders as the relevant roster points. [ 489-E-F]
C
Union of India & Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 38,
relied on.
2. The roster is framed bearing in mind the requirement of increas-
ing outsiders in the quota of Direct Recruits. The policy requires that at D
least 66.2/3% of the officers who are directly recruited are from outside the
State concerned. It does not impose a ceiling of 66.2/3%. [ 489-H, 490-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12310 of
1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1064-CH of 1992.
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.N. Shukla, (Ms. Shashi
E
Kiran) for Ms. Anil Katiyar and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellant.
F
Pankaj Katra and B.K. Sharma for the Respondent in C.A. No.
12310/96.
Rajeev K. Singh for the Respondent in C.A. No. 12325/96.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted in both the special
leave petitions.
Civil Appeal No 12310/96 (@ SLP(C) No. 13705/95.
G
H
A
B
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
Respondent No. 1 appeared in the Civil Service Examination con-
ducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1985. He was
selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1986
batch. The home State of respondent No. 1 is Nagaland and he gave his
preference for allocation to his home State cadre. There were two seats
which were available for allocation to Nagaland. Both these seats were
earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point roster. 1-Ience the first respon-
dent was allocated to the State of Haryana. He challenge this allocation by
filing an application before the Chandigarh Bench of the CeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.