Selected IAS Candidates Have No Right To Be Allocated To Cadre Of Their Choice Or To Home State: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that selected IAS candidates have no right to be allocated to a cadre of their choice or to home state. 

The allocation of cadre is not a matter of right and the State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.

The court also observed that consultation under Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 in respect of allocation of cadre is not required to be done with the State from which the candidate belongs. The mandate of Rule 5(1) of the Cadre Rules is satisfied when consultation is made with the State to which allocation is made.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India against a direction issued by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 28.02.2017 whereby the a successful IAS Candidate was directed to allocate a selected candidate to the Kerala cadre of the All-India Service.

A. Shainamol, a successful IAS candidate, was allotted Himachal Pradesh cadre. She filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the Union 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. Both the candidate and Union of India challenged this order before the High Court of Kerala. Disposing of both the writ petitions, the High Court declared that she is eligible to be allotted the Kerala cadre.

Before the Supreme Court, the Union Government raised the following issues: (1) Whether consultation in respect of allocation of cadre is required to be done with the State from which the candidate belongs or with the State to which the candidate is being allocated. (2) Whether the candidate has any say in the allocation of cadre.

The court observed that an SC/ST or OBC candidate selected against unreserved vacancy as a general merit candidate cannot make a grievance in respect of allocation of cadre but has a right to seek service as a reserved category candidate if that improves the selection of service. On the issue of 'consultation', the court observed thus:

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. In fact, no consultation was required to be carried out in respect of the applicant with Kerala State. Therefore, mandate of Rule 5(1) of the Cadre Rules is satisfied when consultation was made with the State to which allocation was made.

Referring to the judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS, the court said that the allocation of cadre is not a matter of right. It said

"It was held that a selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such right to 30 be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home state. As stated above, allotment of cadre is an incidence of service. The applicant as a candidate for the All-India Service with eyes wide open has opted to serve anywhere in the country. Once an applicant gets selected to service, the scramble for the home cadre starts. The procedure for allocation of cadre is a mechanical process and admits no exception except in terms of Rule 7(4) which is to be read as proviso to Rule 7(3). The State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies."

Observing thus, the court observed that the Tribunal or the High Court should have refrained from interfering with the allocation of cadre in this case.

The court also noted that the applicant filed an application before the Ernakulam Bench for the reason that she was permanent resident in the State or may be for the reason, the order of allocation was received by her in the State of Kerala. Both of these reasons do not give rise to part of cause of action arising within the Jurisdiction of the Ernakulam Bench of Tribunal, the bench said. However, at this stage, the Court did not non-suit her on this ground.

The bench allowed the appeals and set aside orders of both the High Court and the Tribunal.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment