AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 20-11-2012 passed in O.A. No. 170 of 2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ''Tribunal'') has approached this Court for various remedies.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected for the post of Indian Forest Service as per the select list dated 27-4-2007. By virtue of the same, the appointment order was issued to him on 2-8-2007 and thereafter, he was instructed to appear for training at Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, (''IGNFA'' for short), Dehradun. When he was undergoing training, on 13-6-2008 the first respondent had issued a notification allocating the petitioner lo the State of Nagaland. Being aggrieved by such allocation, the petitioner has made a representation on 2-7-2008 to first respondent requesting the first respondent to accommodate and allocate the petitioner either to his home State Karnataka or to Maharashtra State. The said representation was refused on various grounds.
Being aggrieved by the said refusal of the request by the first respondent, the petitioner has secured several documents under the Right to information Act, 2005 from the first respondent and preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for following reliefs:
(i) Call for records pertaining to Notification No. F. No. 17015/01/2007-IFS-II, dated 13-6-2008 (Annexure-A4) - and Notification No. F. No. 17015/01/2007-IFS-II, dated Nil-8-2008 (Annexure-A7) arid set aside the same insofar as it relates to allocating the applicant to Nagaland and allocating the 4th respondent to Karnataka and also the 5th respondent to Maharashtra; and
(ii) Issue a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 directing them to allocate the applicant to Karnataka or Maharashtra Indian Forest Service Cadre from 2006 Examination Batch and to extend all other consequential benefits arising thereby.
It is the main contention of the petitioner that the classification of vacancies was not at all done prior to the examination. It is urged that not a single direct recruitee insider IFS Office) from general category had been allocated to Karnataka from past 12 years. Further, from 2001 onwards, these posts in Karnataka are filled only by OBC and SC or ST candidates, but not by general category. The petitioner has secured information with regard to the allocation of cadre to various states, by ascertaining number of Officers to be allotted on the basis of cadre strength, SC, ST and OBC be distributed on the basis of strength of reserved category as per the guidelines of DoPT. It is urged that without following any of such procedures, the allocation has been made to Nagaland so far as the petitioner is concerned. The first respondent had issued another letter dated 3-2-2009, wherein the information was given with regard to the reserved and unreserved vacancies for Karnataka and Maharashtra. As an insider OBC is not available an outsider OBC candidate (Sri Karnan-respondent 5 before the Tribunal) is posted to the existing posts in respect of Maharashtra. Similarly, the petitioner should have been accommodated in Karnataka against outsider General Category. In violation of the guidelines issued by the first respondent on 30/31-5-1985 for allocation of selected candidates, it has allocated the petitioner to Nagaland.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that an outsider OBC candidate was allotted to Maharashtra during allotment of candidates of IFS Examination, 2005. The same vacancy has been repeated during 2006 also whereas a general outsider should have be en allotted to Maharashtra during the allotment of candidates for IFS Examination 2006. If that was done, it would have entitled the petitioner to the Maharashtra cadre. The petitioner being the topper amongst the general category for the IFS examination would have been given prominence in allocation of vacancy to Maharashtra as outsider general category candidate or to the Karnataka as insider candidate. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the discrimination done by the respondent 1, in not considering the fact that no general insider candidate had been allocated to Karnataka since 1997 and also by not allocating meritorious general candidate to the home State. Therefore, it is contended great injustice has been done to the petitioner. It is also argued that the Tribunal has also ignored that the guidelines which were issued for allocation of the candidates to the said cadres to insider both men and women will be strictly according to their ranks subject to their willingness to their Home State. As the petitioner being the topper, and shown the willingness to his home State, the petitioner should have been considered for allocation of vacancy in Karnataka. Therefore, on these two important grounds, the learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record and erroneously dismissed the petition.
It is also mentioned in the writ petition that out of 35 candidates selected, three candidates were allocated to their Home States. Two candidates refused the offer of appointment, remaining 30 candidates have been posted as outsiders. The respondent 5 (before the Tribunal)-Sri R.V. Karnan, the first rank candidate should have been considered as general merit for allotment to the cadre and should have been allotted to Nagaland, as the first vacancy for general merit during allocation for 2007 Batch Officers to be allocated to Nagaland State. In that eventuality, the petitioner should have been allotted to the next general outsider vacancy which in turn goes to Punjab. In that line also, the injustice has been occurred so far as the petitioner is concerned. Hence he prayed for setting aside the order of the CAT and consequently grant the reliefs as sought before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and it is contended that the two grounds urged before this Court and before the Tribunal are not available to the petitioner as the Rules do not provide for allocation of the petitioner to the home State. Secondly, it is contended that merely because no allocation of the insider has been made from 1997 till 2007 it does not confer any right to the petitioner to seek for his allocation as an insider to the Home State. The allocation of the petitioner to Nagaland is in accordance with the guidelines, as there is no violation of the guidelines he cannot seek his allocation to any other state except the state to which he is allocated. Therefore, the Tribunal in fact in detail dealt with the above said two grounds urged by the petitioner and held that he is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal and there is no room for interference with such an order.
The factual aspects which are not in dispute are that, the applicant is the Officer selected to the Indian Forest Service during 2006 and he can be described as 2007 Batch Officer for which examination and selection were done in the year 2006. It is also not disputed that totally 35 candidates were selected and notified for the Indian Forest Service out of them 2 candidates not accepted the offer of appointment. The petitioner who is from Karnataka in General category has secured second rank in the merit list and he has been allocated to Nagaland in outsider quota. The respondent 4 who was selected from general category whose rank is 20 in the merit list belongs to Rajasthan is allocated to Karnataka cadre. Sri R.V. Karnan who stood first in the rank list, selected in OBC category and whose Home State is Tamil Nadu was allotted to the cadre in Maharashtra. Therefore, those two persons were made as parties to the proceedings.
We have carefully perused the process as to how the allocation has to be made with regard to the allotment of posts of the IFS Cadre Officers which is in detail depicted in Annexure-12. According to Annexure-12, which is the cadre allocation of IFS probationers issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest? At item 3, in Annexure-12 the allocation of cadre is consisting of three steps:
"(1) Ascertaining the number of officers to be allotted to each cadre on the basis of the sanctioned cad re strength and the number of officers in position.
(2) Ascertaining distribution of SC, ST and OBC vacancies on the basis of the strength of reserved category officers in different cadres.
(3) Allocation of cadres to the officers on the basis of guidelines circulated by the DoPT following the roster system.
The broad principles of allocation on the basis of roster system would be as follows:
The vacancies in every cadre will be earmarked for ''outsiders'' and ''insiders'' in the ratio of 2:1. In order to avoid problems relating to fractions and to ensure that this ratio is maintained, over a period of time, if not during allocation, the break-up of vacancies in a cadre between ''outsiders'' and ''insiders'' will be calculated following the cycle of ''outsider'', ''insider'', ''outsider''.
The vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be reserved in the various cadres according to the prescribed percentage. For purpose of this reservation, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be grouped together and the percentages will be added. Distribution of reserved vacancies in each cadre between ''outsiders'' and ''insiders'' will be done in the ratio of 2:1. This ratio will be operationalised by following a cycle ''outsider'' ''insider'', ''outsider'' as is done in the case of general candidates.
Allocation of ''insiders'' both men and women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be allocated to their home states.
Allocation of ''outsiders'', whether they are general candidates or reserved candidates, whether they are men or women, will be according to the roster system after placing ''insiders'' at their proper places on the chart as explained below:
i. All the State cadres/joint cadres should be arranged in alphabetical order and divided into four groups which, on the basis of the average over a period of time, are taking roughly equal number of candidates each. On the basis of average intake during the last 4 years, the groups could be as follows:
Group I: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Bihar and Gujarat.
Group II: Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh.
Group III: Maharashtra, Manipur-Tripura, Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Sikkim.
Group IV: Tamil Nadu, Union Territory, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
ii. Since the number of cadres/joint cadres is 21, the cycles will be 1-21, 22-42, 43-63 and so on.
iii. The ''insider'' quota should then be distributed among the States and assigned to different cycles of allotment. For example, if a State gets 4 ''insider'' candidates, they should go to the share of the State in their respective cycles and if there are 2, ''insider'' candidates from the same cycle, they should be treated as going to the State in two successive cycles and so on.
iv. The ''outsider'' candidates should be arranged in order of merit and allotted to the State cadres in cycles as described in (v) below.
v. In the first cycle, State cadre/joint cadres which have not received ''insider'' candidates should be given one candidate each in order of merit of ''outsider'' candidates. The process should be repeated in successive cycles, each successive cycle beginning with the next successive group of States, e.g., the second cycle should begin from Group II States, the third cycle with Group III States and the fourth cycle with Group IV States and the fifth cycle again with Group I States. Occasionally it may happen that a candidate''s turn may come in such a way that he may get allocated to his own home State. When that happens, the candidate next below him should be exchanged with him.
vi. For the succeeding year, the State Cadres should be arranged again in alphabetical order but with Group I of the previous year at the bottom, i.e., the arrangement will begin with Group II on top. In the third year, Group III will come on top and so on.
vii. In the case of candidates belonging to the reserved category, such of those candidates, whose position in the merit list is such that they could have been appointed to the service even in the absence of any reservation, will be treated on par with general candidates for purposes of allotment though they will be counted against reserved vacancies, in respect of other candidates belonging to the reserved category a procedure similar to the one adopted for general candidates would be adopted. In other words, a separate chart should be prepared with similar grouping of states and similar operational details should be followed. If there is a shortfall in general ''insiders'' quota it could, however, be made up by ''insider'' reserved candidates.
In accordance with the above guidelines as per Annexure-A12 the distribution of the officers have been allocated to different States relevant portion of Annexure-12 is as follows:
(4) At item 5, the distribution of the vacancies in various cadres were proposed on two main considerations; excluding the officials allocated to their home States out of 33 candidates:
(i) There are 24 cadres and it was proposed to allot one candidate to each cadre irrespective of the strength and position in order to maintain the continuity and uniformity.
(ii) The remaining six officers may be allotted to six cadres where deficiency ratio was highest (this has to be done out of 32 candidates) because three candidates were allotted to their home States."
The second step is that, it has to be ascertained the number of SC, ST and OBCs available in different cadres and to make distribution of reserved candidates against the reserved quota. Out of total 30 candidates available for cadre allocation, 10 belong to OBC category, 8 belong to SC/ST and 12 belong to General category. On the basis of the percentage of SC, ST and OBC Officers present vis-a-vis unreserved in each of the cadres and also the allocation and filling of these categories to each of the cadre in the last three years till the date, a detailed statement has been prepared. Accordingly, on the basis of the prescribed percentage and prescribed procedure, distribution of reserved category and general category candidates has been proposed showing the names of the State and the allocation. The third step done by the respondent 1 is dividing the vacancies for each category i.e., unreserved, OBC and SC/ST between insiders and outsiders and its ratio and also in accordance with the prescribed exchange procedure, a chart containing the insider and outsider distribution is worked out.
Basing on the above said steps, finally the proposal of officers to be allotted to various cadres has been worked out in accordance with the above and also as per the following considerations:
(i) For Manipur-Tripura, the Outsider slot is proposed to be exchanged to insider as M and T has not received any insider for the last three years. The 0-1-0 sequence has thus became 0-0-0 till last years. Hence, this year available Insider Officer is proposed to be allotted to maintain 1:2 ratio.
(ii) In the case of Uttar Pradesh and Manipur/Tripura, the slot of available Insider vacancies for reserved Insider OBCs are proposed to be filled by reserved SC/ST Insider Officers, as Insider OBC Officers are not available. In case of Orissa, the slot of available Insider vacancy for reserved SC/ST is proposed to be exchanged with Insider OBC Officer.
(iii) In the case of Assam-Meghalaya, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim and West Bengal, the available Insider vacancies are proposed to be filled up by Outsiders as Insider candidates are not available in these Cadres.
(iv) Although, two candidates Sri R.V. Karnan (OBC) and Ms. Shivani Dogra (SC) are selected without availing themselves of any concession, they will not get their home cadres even if considered as General Candidates because Insider vacancies are not available in their home cadres.
Therefore, considering the availability of the cadre in the State, whether it should be filled up by an outsider or an insider, a detailed list has been prepared as per Annexure-12 and the allocations have been made. Of course, the learned Counsel is successful in showing that no insider from general category has been allocated to Karnataka since 1997. In reply to this particular aspect, the respondents have submitted that the allocation of Officers to various cadres has to be done by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government considering the overall backlog. They have to maintain ratio 1:2 for insider and outsider and the same is filled up by the pattern i.e., outsider-insider-outsider. It is pertinent to note that there was surplus of IFS Officers under Karnataka Cadre. If a particular cadre strength is provided to Karnataka that has to be filled up only by an outsider, because of the pattern recognised. The pattern and guidelines are specifically prescribed, according to the turn of Karnataka, only one post which has to be filled up by an outsider. Merely because, since 1997 no insider general candidate has been allocated to Karnataka, it cannot be a ground to fill up the cadre with an ''insider''. It is the discretion vest with the respondent 1. Considering the particular aspect that since 1997, no officer has been allocated to Karnataka from ''insider'' category. But considering that there is surplus of IFS in Karnataka cadre and only one post is to be filled up through outsider, it cannot be said that the said discretion has not been properly exercised by the respondent 1 and that it has been injudiciously applied so far as the petitioner is concerned in not allocating him to the Karnataka cadre. Apart from the above Annexure-A13, a cop) of the Roster containing the information on the reserved and unreserved vacancies of Karnataka shows that for 1997 though not insider candidate in general category is allotted but for the years 2000, 2002 and 2004 insider candidate from reserved category have been allotted.
Therefore, the allocation of outsider to Karnataka cannot be said that it caused injustice to the petitioner and invested any actionable right. There is no material placed before the Court that as a matter of right, according to any rule or procedure, the petitioner is entitled for that particular State. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering various aspects has rightly come to the conclusion that the said ground is not available to the petitioner.
Coming to the second contention that, the first respondent has not properly followed the guidelines in allocating the 5th respondent (before the Tribunal)-Sri R.V. Karnan, who is at SI. No. 1 in the selection list, to Maharashtra State is also not tenable. In the writ petition itself, it has been categorically stated that the respondent 5 (before the Tribunal)-Sri R.V. Karnan, the first rank candidate, who is an outsider, was allocated to Maharashtra. The question of allocating the said person to Nagaland and in that eventuality, the petitioner getting the allocation of cadre to Punjab is not in existence and available to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the person who has been allocated to Punjab has not been made as a party before this Court or the Tribunal. If any order is passed by the Tribunal or this Court disturbing the allocation of the cadres to different States, it would circuitously affect the other candidates. Therefore, the person who is presently allocated to Punjab as well as to Tamil Nadu in the place of Sri R.V. Karnan, if they are not made as parties to the proceedings, it is not proper to consider the claim of the petitioner. On this ground also, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Moreover the said Sri R.V. Karnan has been selected against OBC quota and the Step III in Annexure-12 is clear that after following the steps as contemplated in Annexure-12 it is found that, he cannot be allocated to his Home State but, he has to be allocated under OBC quota and allocated to Maharashtra State, which procedure is also not shown to be illegal as done by the first respondent.
For the above said reasons, after following the guidelines as per Annexure-12, in order to maintain uniformity and integrity'', to allocate the meritorious candidates to the particular State and also less meritorious to others as per the guidelines and also categorising the availability of OBC, SC, ST and general candidates according to the roster, allocation has been made. It is not shown to the Court that any illegality is committed by violating the rules. Therefore, without there bring any'' rule as such to show that the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right to the Karnataka cadre, merely because discretion allegedly could have been exercised by the respondent 1 to allot him to his home State on the ground that from 1997 no local candidate has been given to Karnataka cadre, it is not open for the petitioner to argue that the petitioner is entitled to such reliefs. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the allocation of Mr. Karnan to Maharashtra as against OBC quota and as well posting the petitioner to Nagaland quota which is according to the guidelines and also the turn available to those States to be filled up by'' outsiders. Whereas only one post is available to Karnataka and according to the turn, it should be filled up by an outsider. That has been done in Annexure-12. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ from the opinion ex pressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has properly appreciated Annexure-12 and the steps followed by respondent 1 in allocating the petitioner to Nagaland.
In the above said circumstances, the writ petition fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.