Holding

A candidate who qualifies on general merit, even if belonging to OBC, is to be allocated as a general‑category officer under the roster system and has no right to claim a home‑state or any other specific cadre; the High Court's order was erroneous and the Tribunal's direction was set aside.

Summary

Ms. A. Shainamol, an OBC candidate who qualified on general merit in the 2006 Civil Services Examination, was allocated to the Himachal Pradesh IAS cadre after the state's consent. She challenged the allocation, seeking placement in the Maharashtra cadre on the basis of higher merit than another candidate, and later the Kerala cadre as her home state. The Central Administrative Tribunal ordered her allocation to Maharashtra; the Kerala High Court directed allocation to Kerala, citing deficit vacancies and lack of consultation. The Supreme Court held that, as a general‑merit candidate who did not avail OBC reservation, she was correctly placed in Himachal Pradesh and had no right to the Kerala or Maharashtra cadres. The Court found the High Court had misread the Cadre Rules, Recruitment Rules and the allocation circular, and exceeded its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court and Tribunal orders and dismissing the original application.

Issues considered

The correct interpretation of Rule 7(3) and 7(4) of the IAS Recruitment Rules regarding OBC candidates who qualify on general merit.
Whether consultation under Rule 5(1) of the IAS Cadre Rules must be with the state of allocation or the candidate's home state.
The entitlement of a candidate to a specific cadre (home state or another state) when the vacancy allocation follows the roster system and outsider‑insider ratio.
The legality of the High Court's order directing allocation to the Kerala cadre in view of the Union's policy of filling only 89 vacancies.
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) to entertain the original application.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. Section 19
All India Services Act, 1951s. Section 3(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987s. Rule 6
Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954s. Rule 5(1), s. Rule 7(3), s. Rule 7(4)
Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954s. Rule 7(3), s. Rule 7(4)

Subjects

Cadre allocationAll India ServicesIASOBC reservationGeneral meritRecruitment RulesCadre RulesConsultation requirementHigh Court jurisdictionCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

396 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 11 S.C.R. 396 [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
v.
MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS AND ANR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11480-81 of 2018)
B 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
C
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
D 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
E
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
F 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
G
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,
H Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Sikkim fell in Group III
396
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 397

whereas Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
concessions or relaxations as OBC and was allocated to
Maharashtra cadre, being the first State in Group I in the scheme
of grouping of States or cadres – Therefore, the applicant had no
claim appointment to the Maharashtra cadre – She had no right to
the Kerala cadre as well as the second post in the vacancies in the
State of Kerala was meant for an OBC outsider candidate – Since H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A Kerala was second last State in Group IV, the OBC candidate at
Serial No. 131 was allocated such cadre – Indian Administrative
Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 – r.5(1).
Service Law: All India Service – CSE-2006 – Allocation of
home cadre, claimed by OBC candidate, coming on general merit
B without resorting to the relaxed standard for the candidates
belonging to OBC – The notification inviting applications for CSE-
2006 was in terms of r.7 of the Recruitment Rules and also the
allocation circular – The proviso to clause 16(1) of the notification
contemplates that if an SC/ST or OBC candidate has not availed
any concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or selection criteria
C at any stage of the examination, and if after taking into account the
general qualifying standards is found fit for recommendation by
the Commission, they shall not be recommended against the vacancies
reserved for SC/ST and OBC – It is sub-clause (2) of Clause 16 of
CSE-2006 which gives an option to SC/ST or OBC candidate
D recommended against unreserved vacancies to be adjusted against
reserved vacancies, if by this process they get a service of higher
choice in order of their preference – Thus, 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
E that improves the selection of service – In fact, all the candidates
including the applicant were put to notice as to how the cadre
allocation would be made – But still, the applicant chose to claim
home state though she was not eligible to be considered for such
state – She had taken chance in appearing in the selection process
F but when she was unsuccessful in getting the home cadre, attempts
were made to get into the home cadre on wholly untenable grounds
– Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – r.7.
Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954: OBC
candidate, coming on general merit without resorting to the relaxed
standard for the candidates belonging to OBC – Entitlement to OBC
G
reserved seat in her State – Held: r.7(3) of the Recruitment Rules
contemplates that the candidate belonging to the SC/ST or OBC
found suitable by the Commission for appointment to the service
“shall be appointed against unreserved vacancies” in case they
qualify for appointment to the service based on their merit without
H recourse to the benefit of reservation – Such provision in the rule is
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 399

a consonance with the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney and A
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. – r.7(4) is to be read as a proviso to
r.7(3) of the Recruitment Rules which permits the appointment of
candidates of SC/ST or OBC against the vacancies reserved for
such candidates “with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency
of administration” – Therefore, if a SC/ST or OBC candidate who
B
has been found suitable for appointment against the unreserved
vacancies can be appointed against the vacancy reserved for SC/
ST or OBC, provided a conscious decision is taken with regard to
the maintenance of efficiency of administration – The applicant
though belonging to OBC has not availed any relaxations or
concessions admissible to OBC candidates – She was a general C
merit candidate, thus not entitled to OBC reserved seat in her State
– She was allocated to Himachal Pradesh cadre as a general
category candidate falling in r.7(3) in view of her merit position as
a general category candidate.
Service Jurisprudence: Allotment of cadre is an incidence of D
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 r.7(4)
which is to be read as proviso to r.7(3) – The State has no discretion E
of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies – Therefore, the
Tribunal or the High Court should have refrained from interfering
with the allocation of cadre on the argument of alleged violation of
the allocation circular – Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 1954 – r.7(3) – Service law. F
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 G
order. Later, another procedure was circulated on 30/
31.05.198511. 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
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A fell in Group III whereas Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &
Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh fell in Group
II. [Para 11][414-B-C]
2. It has come on record that as per a meeting held on
04.07.2002, the number of vacancies to be filled for IAS every
B year from 2002 up to 2007 worked out to be 85. Such decision
was in terms of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules. The review was
contemplated to be after five years as against three years
prevalent prior to notification dated 10.03.1995. It is not the case
of any party that the States had not participated in the meeting
held on 04.07.2002. It was also found that by the time this decision
C was taken, the process of Civil Services Examination-2002 was
already initiated. Therefore, the Commission expressed its
inability to recruit 85 officers in the CSE-2002. Hence, it was
decided to recruit 70 officers in CSE-2002 and distribute the
remaining 15 vacancies over the next four years. Therefore, the
D actual requirement of vacancies for CSE-2006 became 89 (85+4).
[Para 12][416-G-H; 417-A-B]
3. There was requisition for 108 posts by the States as
against the 89 posts available for allotment. Kerala had sought 7
to 14 officers as against 2 officers allocated to it. In the brief
E notes circulated on behalf of the Union before this Court on
24.09.2018, it was mentioned that there were total 595 districts
in the country whereas Kerala had 14 districts at the time of
distribution of vacancies for CSE-2006. Therefore, the vacancies
in Kerala were determined as 14/595*89= 2.09 (rounded off to
2). In the additional affidavit filed by the Union on 31.10.2018, it
F was also pointed out that strength of 89 was divided between the
cadres on the ratio of number of districts in each State.
[Para 13][417-B-D]
4. The applicant was allocated to the State of Himachal
Pradesh and there was a consent duly given by the State of
G 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. [Para 23][421-G-H;
H 422-A]
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 401

5. The State of Kerala has not disputed the decision arrived A
at in the meeting held on 04.07.2002, whereby the allocation of
89 vacancies to be filled up to the year 2007 was arrived at. Out
of 89 vacancies, two vacancies were allocated to the State of
Kerala, one to be filled up by an insider and other by an outsider
OBC. The fact that the Kerala Cadre is deficient in respect of
B
number of officers cannot be disputed by a successful candidate
as such candidate had no right to claim additional vacancies so
that the applicant can be assigned home state. The argument to
claim that the entire deficient cadre should be made by allocation
to one State in preference to other 23 States in the country is
preposterous. The balancing of claims of all the States is to be C
carried by the Union and not by one State or by the Courts.
[Para 24][422-B-C]
Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Ors.
(1994) 6 SCC 38 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 30 – relied
on. D
6. The number of vacancies allocated to each State was again
based on logical mechanism as the number of districts in the entire
country i.e., 595 divided by the number of districts in the State.
Thus, in this manner, the vacancies available for allocation to the
various States were arrived at. Accordingly, the two vacancies E
were allocated to the State of Kerala and the allocation in other
States was in respect of number of districts available in each State.
[Para 25][422-D-E]
7. The applicant claimed allocation to the State of Kerala,
i.e., her home cadre. There were 4 senior candidates in the F
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 Rule 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 G
candidates will be treated as General Category Candidates who
have not availed any concession or relaxation. The applicant was
thus rightly treated as General Category candidate. In terms of
Clause 16(2) of the CSE-2006 notification, the candidates
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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 strange and bereft of any merit.
C [Paras 26 and 27][422-E-H; 423-A-B]
8. The consistent view of this Court has been that even if
the name of the candidate appears in the merit list, such candidate
has no right to claim appointment. [Para 28][423-B-C]
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 :
D [1991] 2 SCR 567 – followed.
The State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha
and Ors. (1974) 3 SCC 220 : [1974] 1 SCR 165 –
relied on.

E 9. The decision of the Union to fill only 89 vacancies in the
cadre of IAS cannot be permitted to be disputed. The High Court
had 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. The High Court again erred in law
that an OBC candidate, who has not availed relaxation or
F concession, had to be treated as general category candidate.
[Para 30][424-C-D]
10. Rule 7(3) of the Recruitment Rules contemplates that
the candidate belonging to the SC/ST or OBC found suitable by
the Commission for appointment to the service “shall be appointed
G against unreserved vacancies” in case they qualify for appointment
to the service based on their merit without recourse to the benefit
of reservation. Such provision in the rule is a consonance with
the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. [Para 31][424-E-F]
H
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 403

Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. A
(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 –
relied on.
11. Rule 7(4) is to be read as a proviso to Rule 7(3) of the
Recruitment Rules which permits the appointment of candidates
of SC/ST or OBC against the vacancies reserved for such B
candidates “with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency of
administration”. Therefore, if a SC/ST or OBC candidate who
has been found suitable for appointment against the unreserved
vacancies can be appointed against the vacancy reserved for
SC/ST or OBC, provided a conscious decision is taken with regard
to the maintenance of efficiency of administration. [Para 32] C
[424-G-H; 425-A-B]
12. The applicant though belonging to OBC has not availed
any relaxations or concessions admissible to OBC candidates.
She was a general merit candidate, thus not entitled to
OBC reserved seat in her State. She was allocated to Himachal D
Pradesh cadre as a general category candidate falling in Rule
7(3) in view of her merit position as a general category candidate.
[Para 33][425-B-C]
13. Regulation 7 of the Competitive Examination
Regulations framed under the Recruitment Rules does not make E
mention of OBC candidate in the list of successful candidates
published under Rule 7 but such regulation has to be read in
terms of Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules as such regulations
have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule
7 of the Recruitment Rules. It may be a situation of casus omissus F
but since such regulation is not in tune with Rule 7 of the
Recruitment Rules, it has to give way to the statutory rules framed.
The regulations cannot be in conflict with the statutory rules.
Therefore, the non-inclusion of OBC in Regulation 7 is
inconsequential for the purposes of the present appeals as the
case of the applicant falls within Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules. G
[Para 34][425-C-E]
14. Candidate-Merit No.26 was the first OBC candidate
who had availed concessions or relaxations as OBC and was
allocated to Maharashtra cadre, being the first State in Group I
in the scheme of grouping of States or cadres. Therefore, the H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A applicant had no claim appointment to the Maharashtra cadre.
She had no right to the Kerala cadre as well as the second post in
the vacancies in the State of Kerala was meant for an OBC outsider
candidate. Since Kerala was second last State in Group IV, the
OBC candidate at Serial No. 131 was allocated such cadre.
[Para 35][425-E-G]
B
Satya Prakash v. Union of India 2002 SCC On Line
Del 1000 : (2002) 99 DLT 749 (DB) – referred to.
15. The notification dated 3.12.2005 inviting applications
for CSE-2006 was in terms of Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules
C and also the allocation circular. The proviso to clause 16(1) of
the notification contemplates that if an SC/ST or OBC candidate
has not availed any concessions or relaxations in the eligibility
or selection criteria at any stage of the examination, and if after
taking into account the general qualifying standards is found fit
for recommendation by the Commission, they shall not be
D recommended against the vacancies reserved for SC/ST and
OBC. [Para 38][427-D-E]
16. It is sub-clause (2) of Clause 16 of CSE-2006 which
gives an option to SC/ST or OBC candidate recommended against
unreserved vacancies to be adjusted against reserved vacancies,
E if by this process they get a service of higher choice in order of
their preference. Thus, 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
F the selection of service. In fact, all the candidates including the
applicant were put to notice as to how the cadre allocation would
be made. But still, the applicant chose to claim home state though
she was not eligible to be considered for such state. She had
taken chance in appearing in the selection process but when she
was unsuccessful in getting the home cadre, attempts were made
G to get into the home cadre on wholly untenable grounds.
[Para 39][427-F-H; 428-A]
17. In the light of Rajiv Yadav, the allocation of cadre is not
a matter of right. It was held that a selected candidate has a right

H
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 405

to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such A
right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home state.
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
B
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. Therefore, the Tribunal or the
High Court should have refrained from interfering with the
allocation of cadre on the argument of alleged violation of the C
allocation circular. [Para 40][428-B-D]
18. The observation of the High Court that there was a
lack of consultation with the State of Kerala is not acceptable.
Such consultation was not required to be carried out. The finding
of the High Court that the determination of total vacancies to be D
89 was affected without any regard to cadre gap and on the ground
that the requisition by the State Government was ignored as the
rules and regulations warranted a mandatory consultation with
the State of Kerala. Such conclusions are not supported by the
documents on record including the additional affidavit filed by
the Union. The findings of the High Court that the action of the E
Union was arbitrary as the allocation to certain States was more
than the cadre gap is again not sustainable as the 89 vacancies
were allocated to the States on the basis of the norms as
disclosed in the brief notes submitted before this Court.
[Para 41][428-D-F] F
19. The judgment of the Kerala High Court in Jyothilal again
proceeds on the assumption that consultation was required to be
carried out with the State of Kerala though the candidate was
allocated to the State of Orissa. The judgment proceeds on basic
fallacy that consultation has to be with the State to whom the G
officer is to be allocated, not with the State with whom the officers
claim allocation. [Para 42][428-G]
20. In terms of Rule 6 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal is required to be filed where the H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A applicant is posted for the time being or the cause of action wholly
or in part has arisen. The applicant in her Original Application
has not laid any foundation as to how the Ernakulam Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to
entertain an Original Application filed by her. It appears that the
applicant had chosen the Ernakulam Bench for the reason that
B
she was permanent resident of Kerala State. The applicant was
not posted in the State of Kerala on the date of filing of the
application. The applicant has not explained how the cause of
action either wholly or partly had arisen within the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal at Kerala. [Para 43][428-H; 429-A-B]
C Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu
& Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 252;
Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC
335 : [2007] 4 SCR 46; Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy
Commandant 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 366 – referred
D to.
21. The Union of India had not raised objection about the
entertainment of an Original Application filed by the applicant
before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The applicant filed an application before the Ernakulam
E 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. At this stage, the applicant is
not being non-suited on the ground that the Ernakulam Bench of
F the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. [Para 47][431-F-G]
Union of India and Anr. v. Satya Prakash and Ors.
(2006) 4 SCC 550 : [2006] 3 SCR 789; Union of India
v. Jyothilal and Ors. (2003) 3 ILR (Kerala) 516 –
referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
[1974] 1 SCR 165 relied on Para 17
[1991] 2 SCR 567 followed Para 17

H
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 407

[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 30 relied on Para 18 A
[2006] 3 SCR 789 referred to Para 19
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 relied on Para 31
[1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 252 referred to Para 44
[2007] 4 SCR 46 referred to Para 45 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.11480-
11481 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. (C) No.30460 of 2009 and W.P. (C)
No.9568 of 2010-Z. C

K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Col. R. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv., R. Bala,
Mukul Singh, P. S. Sudheer, Raghvendra Srivastava, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman Ghani Khan, Anand B.
D
Menon, Ms. Pallavi Pratap, G. Prakash, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms.
Beena Prakash, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals, at the instance of Union of India1, are E
directed against an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
on 28.02.2017 whereby the appellant was directed to allocate the
respondent2 herein to the Kerala cadre of the All-India Service.
2. The applicant is a candidate seeking appointment to the All-
India Services in pursuance of the Civil Services Examination-2006 3. F
The applicant was successful as she found her name at Serial No. 20 of
the candidates selected by the Union Public Service Commission4. She
belongs to Muslim community and also to the Other Backward Class 5.
She was allotted Himachal Pradesh cadre after the Union sought the
consent of Himachal Pradesh government on 13.11.2007, which was
G
duly received on 17.12.2007.
1
For short, the ‘Union’
2
For short, the ‘Applicant’
3
For short, the ‘CSE-2006’
4
For short, the ‘Commission’
5
For short, the ‘OBC’ H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 3. It is thereafter that the applicant filed an Original Application
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the
Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal6. 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.
B
The Union and the applicant aggrieved against the said order filed writ
petitions before the High Court of Kerela at Ernakulam. The writ petition
of the Union challenging the direction of the Tribunal to accommodate
the applicant in the Maharashtra cadre was allowed. Also, even the
original application filed by the applicant for declaring and directing that
C the applicant is eligible to be allotted the Kerala cadre was allowed.
4. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant, though an OBC
candidate, came on general merit without resorting to the relaxed standard
for the candidates belonging to OBC. The applicant was one of the
candidates belonging to Kerala and that the four other general category
D candidates were higher in merit than her. The placement of the applicant
is as under:

E

F
5. In the year in question, as per the policy, there was one post
meant for Insider Unreserved candidate against which Prasanth N (Merit
No. 4) from Kerala was allocated Kerala cadre. The second vacancy
for OBC Outsider was allotted to Patil Ajit Bhagwatrao (Merit No. 131).
The grievance of the applicant was that she had a better merit than Shri
G Sachindra Pratap Singh (Merit No. 26) who was allocated the
Maharashtra cadre as an OBC candidate. The argument of the applicant
was that she was higher in merit as an OBC candidate, therefore, she
should have been allocated the Maharashtra cadre. Such argument was
accepted by the Tribunal.
H 6
For short, the ‘Tribunal’
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 409
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

6. The High Court, in the writ petitions against the order of the A
Tribunal, inter alia held that the Kerala government had submitted
requisition for a minimum of 7 candidates. Even as per the Union, the
cadre was of 124 direct recruits and the available officers were 119,
therefore, there was a cadre deficiency of 5 officers. It was held that 5
admitted deficit vacancies were required to be filled up by following the
B
outsider-insider ratio in the given cycle of 30-point roster, then there
would be an insider vacancy, to be given either to the Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes7 or the OBC. Since there was no SC/ST candidate,
it had to be filled up by insider OBC, i.e., the applicant. It was also found
that Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 8
contemplates consultation with the State Government in respect of matter C
of allocation of cadre. Since there was no consultation with the
government of Kerala, the Union is in breach of the mandate of Rule
5(1).
7. We find that the High Court has completely misread the statutory
rules and the policy of allocation of cadre which would be discussed D
hereinafter.
8. The relevant rules, regulations and the policy instructions are
required to be extracted before we proceed to discuss the respective
contentions of the parties.
“The Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 E
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 3
of the All India Services Act, 1951 (LXI of 1951), the Central
Government, after consultation with the Governments of the States
concerned, hereby makes the following rules namely:
xxx xxx xxx F
2. Definitions: In these rules, unless the context otherwise
requires-
(a) ‘Cadre officer’ means a member of the Indian
Administrative Service;
(b) ‘Cadre post’ means any of the post specified under item 1 G
of each cadre in schedule to the Indian Administrative
Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.
xxx xxx xxx
7
For short, the ‘SC/ST’
8
For short, the ‘Cadre Rules H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 5. Allocation of members to various cadres – (1) The
allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by
the Central Government in consultation with the State Government
or the State Government concerned.”
9. The relevant Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,
B 1954 9 and The Indian Administration Service (Appointment by
Competitive Examination) Regulations, 195510 read as under:
“The Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1954.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section
C 3 of the All-India Services Act, 1951 (LXI of 1951), the Central
Government after consultation with the Government of the States
concerned, hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
xxx xxx xxx
7. Recruitment by competitive examination.
D 7(1) A competitive examination for recruitment to the Service
shall be held at such intervals as the Central Government may, in
consultation with the Commission, from time to time, determine.
7(2) The examination shall be conducted by the Commission in
accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may
E from time to time make in consultation with the Commission and
State Government.
7(3) Appointment to the Service shall be subject to orders regarding
special representation in the Service for Scheduled Castes
Scheduled Tribes [and Other Backward Castes] issued by the
F Central Government from time to time in consultation with the
State Governments.
Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes [or the other Backward Classes]
and declared by the Commission to be suitable for appointment
G to the Service shall be appointed against unreserved vacancies
in case they qualify for appointment to the Service based on
their merit without recourse to the benefit of reservation.
(Emphasis Supplied)

’9 For short, the ‘Recruitment Rules’
H 10
For short, the ‘Competitive Examination Regulations’
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 411
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

7(4) Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the A
Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes declared by the
Commission to be suitable for appointment to the Service with
due regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration may
be appointed to the vacancies reserved for the candidates of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward
B
Classes, as the case may be, under sub-rule (3).
Explanatory Note:- The Provisions for reservation in respect of
the Other Backward Classes for recruitment to the Service was
commenced from the year 1994 onwards and hence it is proposed
to give retrospective effect to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of
Rule 7 from the 1st day of January 1994. It is certified that by C
giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the sub-rule (3) of
Rule 7, nobody is being adversely effected.”
“The Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955
In pursuance of Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service D
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954, the Central Government, in consultation
with the State Governments and the Union Public Service
Commission, hereby makes the following regulations, namely:-
xxx xxx xxx
7. List of successful candidates: E
(1) Subject to the provision of sub-regulation (2) the commission
shall forward to the Central Government a list arranged in
order of merit of the candidates who have qualified by such
standards as the Commission may determine.
(2) The candidates, belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes F
or the Scheduled Tribes may, to the extent of the number of
vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, be recommended by the Commission by
a relaxed standard, subject to the fitness of these candidates
for selection to the Service.
G
Provided that the candidates, belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who have been
recommended by the Commission without resorting to the
relaxed standard referred to in this sub-regulation, shall not
be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 10. The notification for conducting CSE-2006 was published in
the Government of India Gazette on 03.12.2005. The relevant clauses
pertaining to allocation of cadre as provided by the notification read
thus:
“NOTIFICATON
B New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2005
RULES
No. 13018/6/2005-AIS(I).- The rules for a competitive
examination-Civil Services Examination to be held by the Union
Public Service Cofmmission in 2006 for the purpose of filling
C vacancies in the following services/posts are, with the concurrence
of the Ministries concerned and the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India in respect of the Indian Audit and Accounts
Service, published for general information.”
xxx xxx xxx
D
16 (1) After interview, the candidates will be arranged by the
Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate
marks finally awarded to each candidate in the Main Examination.
Thereafter, the Commission shall, for the purpose of recommending
candidates against unreserved vacancies, fix a qualifying mark
E (hereinafter referred to as general qualifying standard) with
reference to the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up
on the basis of the Main Examination. For the purpose of
recommending reserved category candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
F against reserved vacancies, the Commission may relax the general
qualifying standard with reference to number of reserved
vacancies to be filled up in each of these categories on the basis
of the Main Examination:
Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes
G
who have not availed themselves of any of the concessions
or relaxations in the eligibility or the selection criteria, at
any stage of the examination and who after taking into
account the general qualifying standards are found fit for
recommendation by the Commission shall not be recommended
H against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes,
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 413
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. (Emphasis A
Supplied)
(2) While making service allocation, the candidates belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward
Classes recommended against unreserved vacancies may be
adjusted against reserved vacancies by the Govt. If by this process B
they get a service of higher choice in the order of their
preference. (Emphasis Supplied)
(3) The Commission may further lower the qualifying standards
to take care of any shortfall of candidates for appointment against
unreserved vacancies and any surplus of candidates against C
reserved vacancies arising out of the provisions of this rule, the
Commission may make the recommendations in the manner
prescribed in sub-rules (4) and (5).
(4) While recommending the candidates, the Commission shall, in
the first instance, take into account the total number of vacancies D
in all categories. This total number of recommended candidates
shall be reduced by the number of candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes who acquire the merit at or above the fixed general
qualifying standard without availing themselves of any concession
or relaxation in the eligibility or selection criteria in terms of the E
proviso to sub-rule (1). Along with this list of recommended
candidates, the Commission shall also declare a consolidated
reserve list of candidates which will include candidates from
general and reserved categories ranking in order of merit below
the last recommended candidate under each category. The number F
of candidates in each of these categories will be equal to the
number of reserved category candidates who were included in
the first list without availing of any relaxation or concession in
eligibility or selection criteria as per proviso to sub-rule (1). Amongst
the reserved categories, the number of candidates from each of
the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward G
Class categories in the reserve list will be equal to the respective
number of vacancies reduced initially in each category.
(5) The candidates recommended in terms of the provisions of
sub-rule (4), shall be allocated by the Government to the Services
and where certain vacancies still remain to be filled up, the H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A Government may forward a requisition to the Commission requiring
it to recommend, in order of merit, from the reserve list, the same
number of candidates as requisitioned for the purpose of filling up
the unfilled vacancies in each category.”
11. The Union had prescribed a procedure to be followed in the
B 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 30/31.05.198511. 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
C Sikkim fell in Group III whereas Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu
& Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh fell in Group II.
The principles of allocation on the basis of roster system were as follows:
“Government of India

D Ministry of Personnel & Training
Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pensions
Secretary
D.O. No. 13012/5/84-AIS(I) Dated 30/31 May 1985
E XXX XXX
(1) 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
F in a cadre between ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ will be calculated
following the cycle of ‘outsider’, ‘insider’, ‘outsider’.
(2) 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
G 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.
11
H For short, the ‘allocation circular’
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 415
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

(3) Allocation of ‘insiders’, both men and women, will be strictly A
according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be allocated
to their home States.
(4) 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 B
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 C
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 & Kashmir, D
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. E
(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’ F
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.
G
(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
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 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 III States, the
third cycle with Group III States and the fourth cycle
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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,
F 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.”
G 12. It has also come on record that as per a meeting held on
04.07.2002, the number of vacancies to be filled for IAS every year
from 2002 up to 2007 worked out to be 85. Such decision was in terms
of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules. The review was contemplated to be after
five years as against three years prevalent prior to notification dated
H 10.03.1995. It is not the case of any party that the States had not
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 417
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

participated in the meeting held on 04.07.2002. It was also found that by A
the time this decision was taken, the process of Civil Services Examination-
200212 was already initiated. Therefore, the Commission expressed its
inability to recruit 85 officers in the CSE-2002. Hence, it was decided to
recruit 70 officers in CSE-2002 and distribute the remaining 15 vacancies
over the next four years. Therefore, the actual requirement of vacancies
B
for CSE-2006 became 89 (85+4).
13. There was requisition for 108 posts by the States as against
the 89 posts available for allotment. Kerala had sought 7 to 14 officers
as against 2 officers allocated to it. In the brief notes circulated on behalf
of the Union before this Court on 24.09.2018, it was mentioned that
there were total 595 districts in the country whereas Kerala had 14 C
districts at the time of distribution of vacancies for CSE-2006. Therefore,
the vacancies in Kerala were determined as 14/595*89= 2.09 (rounded
off to 2). In the additional affidavit filed by the Union on 31.10.2018, it
was also pointed out that strength of 89 was divided between the cadres
on the ratio of number of districts in each State. The 2 vacancies in the D
State of Kerala were decided to be filled up in the following manner:

E

14. In respect of the applicant, foot note was given that she is a F
General Merit Candidate. She had not availed any concessions/relaxations
admissible to an OBC candidate.
15. In light of this factual background, the argument of the Union
was that in terms of Rule 7(3) of the Recruitment Rules, candidates
belonging to SC/ST or OBC shall be appointed against unreserved G
vacancies in case they qualify for appointment to the service based on
their merit without recourse to the benefit of reservation. However, Rule
7(4) contemplates that the candidates belonging to SC/ST or OBC may
be appointed to the vacancies reserved for the candidates of the SC/ST
12
For short, the ‘CSE-2002’ H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A or OBC, as the case may be, under sub-rule (3) with due regard to the
maintenance of efficiency of administration. It was thus contended that
in terms of Rule 7(3), if a SC/ST or OBC candidate is appointed without
recourse to the benefit of relaxed standard, they shall be appointed against
unreserved vacancies. However, Rule 7(4) is an enabling provision, as
an exception to Rule 7(3), that a SC/ST or OBC candidate may be
B
appointed to the vacancies reserved for SC/ST or OBC candidates with
due regard to maintenance of efficiency of administration. Therefore, in
terms of the Recruitment Rules, the applicant was assigned Himachal
Pradesh cadre as a general category candidate and in terms of sub-
clause (v) and (vi) of Clause 4 of the allocation circular. The applicant
C had not availed any concessions/relaxations as admissible to OBC
candidates. Therefore, she was a general merit candidate. Sachindra
Pratap Singh who was an OBC candidate had ranked 26 in the merit
list. He had availed concessions and relaxations available to such OBC
candidates unlike the applicant. Therefore, as an OBC candidate, the
first vacancy of OBC was allocated to Maharashtra cadre as it was the
D
first State in the grouping of cadres to be followed for cadre allocation.
The scheme of grouping of cadres was that all 24 States were put in the
four groups on the basis of the average over a period of time, by taking
roughly equal number of candidates for each State on the basis of average
of the last four years. The State cadres were then arranged again in
E alphabetical order but Group I of the previous year was placed at the
bottom, i.e., the arrangement of the previous year at the bottom. Thus,
the next year arrangement will begin with Group II on top. In the third
year, Group III would come on top and so on. Thus the cadre allocation
of the candidates selected on the basis of CSE 2006 were in the following
manner:-
F

G

16. It was also argued that consultation contemplated under Rule
5(1) of the Cadre Rules was held with the State of Himachal Pradesh
H where the applicant was allocated. The offer of allocation of the applicant
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 419
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

was accepted by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, the required A
consultation process was complete in respect of allocation of the applicant
to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court had thus completely
erred in law in holding that the consultation was required to be done with
the State of Kerala for the reason the applicant belongs to Kerala and
wanted to be allocated to Kerala. No such consultation was warranted
B
in respect of the applicant with Kerala Government as she was 5th in the
merit list of the candidates from Kerala. The first vacancy meant for
insider from a Kerala candidate was filled up by Prasanna N. The other
vacancy was meant for outsider OBC which was filled in by a person at
Serial No. 131 as Kerala was the second-last State in Group IV for that
particular year. C
17. It was also argued that decision to fill up 89 vacancies was an
administrative decision keeping in view multiple factors including the
availability of infrastructure for training of the candidates at Lal Bahadur
Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. It was
contended that mere vacancy in the cadre or in a particular State does D
not confer any legal right for the State to demand additional officers as
such administrative decision is not confined to one State alone but to the
entire country. Therefore, the officers could not be allocated to the State
of Kerala in contravention to the policy decision of filling up 89 vacancies
in the CSE-2006. Reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court
reported as The State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha E
and Ors.13 and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India14.
18. The appellant also referred to a three Judge Bench judgment
of this Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS
and Ors.15 wherein considering the allocation circular, it was held that a
selected candidate had a right to consider the appointment of the IAS F
but he had no such right to be allocated to cadre of his choice or to his
home state. Allocation of cadre was an incidence of service. The Court
held as under:
“6. We may examine the question from another angle. A selected
candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS G
but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or
to his home State. Allotment of cadre is an incidence of service.
13
(1974) 3 SCC 220
14
(1991) 3 SCC 47
15
(1994) 6 SCC 38 H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A A member of an all-India Service bears liability to serve in any
part of India. The principles of allocation as contained in clause
(2) of the letter dated 31-5-1985, wherein preference is given to a
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate for allocation to his
home State, do not provide for reservation of appointments or
posts and as such the question of testing the said principles on the
B
anvil of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India does not arise.
……………… But for the “Roster System” it would be difficult
rather impossible for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
candidates to be allocated to their home States. The principles of
cadre allocation, thus, ensure equitable distribution of reserved
C candidates amongst all the cadres.”
19. It was contended that a judgment of this Court reported as
Union of India and Anr. v. Satya Prakash and Ors.16 arises out of
the fact where OBC candidates selected on merit were taken into
consideration to determine the quota of OBC candidates. Therefore, the
D said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as
it is not the case of any other parties that OBC candidates appointed on
merit have been taken into consideration for determining the quota of
OBC candidates for filling up of the post in terms of CSE-2006 notification.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant argued
E that on the basis of the affidavit filed by the State of Kerala, there was
no consultation with it in respect of allocation of the applicant to the
State of Kerala. The reliance is based upon a Division Bench judgment
of Kerala High Court reported as Union of India v. Jyothilal and
Ors.17 wherein for lack of consultation with the State, the Division Bench
held as under:
F
“37. In view of the above, it is held that:
xxx xxx xxx
(v) In the present case, the provision of Rule 5 was not followed
inasmuch as the order of allocation had been actually passed and
G communicated by the Central Government vide its letter dated,
December 17, 1993. The letters for consultation with the State
Government had been issued by the Central Government on
February 8, 1994. The consultation had to precede the order and
16
(2006) 4 SCC 550
H 17
(2003) 3 ILR (Kerala) 516
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 421
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

not follow it. It is settled that if anything is required to be done in A
a particular way, it must be done in that manner and no other. This
rule was admittedly not followed. Thus, the action in the present
case was not in conformity with the provision contained in Rule
5.”
21. It has been pointed out that Civil Appeal No. 47/2004 against B
the said judgment was decided on 03.05.2006 wherein it was held by
this Court as under:
“Although a number of legal issues of seminal importance were
sought to be raised and urged before us, it appears to us that there
no final relief that can be granted to the Union of India in this C
Appeal. The first respondent has been working as an officer of
the State of Kerala cadre for almost ten years. Therefore, it would
be unjust and inequitable to direct his reallocation to the State of
Orissa cadre, both from his point of view and from the point of
view of the efficiency of the administration. We are, therefore,
not inclined to make any such order with regard to the reallocation D
of the first respondent to the State of Orissa cadre.
In the result, we think that a just solution would be to dismissed
this Appeal filed by the Union of India, keeping open all the issues
of law raised in this Appeal to be urged and decided in a more
appropriate case.” E

22. It is argued that the applicant is an OBC candidate, therefore,
she is in need of availing OBC status only at the time of cadre allocation,
whereas the Union had overlooked this fact. The candidate at serial no.
26 had been allocated Maharashtra Cadre as an outsider, whereas, the
applicant is also an outsider candidate so far as Maharashtra is concerned, F
therefore, she is entitled to be allocated to Maharashtra cadre.
23. The first question required to be examined is 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. The entire basis of claim of the applicant G
is that there was no consultation with the State of Kerala. The said
argument is however untenable. 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
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 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.
24. The State of Kerala has not disputed the decision arrived at in
the meeting held on 04.07.2002, whereby the allocation of 89 vacancies
B to be filled up to the year 2007 was arrived at. Out of 89 vacancies, two
vacancies were allocated to the State of Kerala, one to be filled up by an
insider and other by an outsider OBC. The fact that the Kerala Cadre is
deficient in respect of number of officers cannot be disputed by a
successful candidate as such candidate had no right to claim additional
vacancies so that the applicant can be assigned home state. The argument
C to claim that the entire deficient cadre should be made by allocation to
one State in preference to other 23 States in the country is preposterous.
The balancing of claims of all the States is to be carried by the Union
and not by one State or by the Courts.
25. The allocation order was approved by this Court in Rajiv
D Yadav. The number of vacancies allocated to each State was again
based on logical mechanism as the number of districts in the entire country
i.e., 595 divided by the number of districts in the State. Thus, in this
manner, the vacancies available for allocation to the various States were
arrived at. Accordingly, the two vacancies were allocated to the State of
Kerala and the allocation in other States was in respect of number of
E
districts available in each State.
26. The 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
F terms of proviso to Rule 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. The applicant was thus
G 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
H of service.
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 423
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

27. Therefore, as a general category candidate, there was no A
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 strange and bereft of any merit.
B
28. The consistent view of this Court has been that even if the
name of the candidate appears in the merit list, such candidate has no
right to claim appointment. The Constitution Bench in a judgment reported
as Shankarsan Dash held as under:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified C
for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit,
the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the
notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates
to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire
any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so D
indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence
of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And
if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to E
respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at
the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This
correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and
we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973
SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State F
of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] ,
or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985
SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] .”
29. In Subhash Chander Marwaha, this Court held that the
existence of vacancies does not give any legal right to a candidate to be G
selected for appointment. It was held as under:
“10. One fails to see how the existence of vacancies give a legal
right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination
is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible
for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A open then to the Government to decide how many appointments
shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate’s name appears in
the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed.
Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for
appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there
would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the
B
State Government had departed from the rules in this respect.
………… There is no constraint that the Government shall make
an appointment of a Subordinate Judge either because there are
vacancies or because a list of candidates has been prepared and
is in existence. “
C 30. Therefore, the decision of the Union to fill only 89 vacancies
in the cadre of IAS cannot be permitted to be disputed. The High Court
had 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. The High Court again erred in law that an OBC
D candidate, who has not availed relaxation or concession, had to be treated
as general category candidate.
31. Rule 7(3) of the Recruitment Rules contemplates that the
candidate belonging to the SC/ST or OBC found suitable by the
Commission for appointment to the service “shall be appointed against
E unreserved vacancies” in case they qualify for appointment to the
service based on their merit without recourse to the benefit of reservation.
Such provision in the rule is a consonance with the judgment of this
Court in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.18 which
reads thus:

F “811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations
under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It
may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled
Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of
their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved
for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition
G candidates.”
32. Rule 7(4) is to be read as a proviso to Rule 7(3) of the
Recruitment Rules which permits the appointment of candidates of SC/
ST or OBC against the vacancies reserved for such candidates “with
18
H (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 425
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

due regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration”. A
Therefore, if a SC/ST or OBC candidate who has been found suitable
for appointment against the unreserved vacancies can be appointed against
the vacancy reserved for SC/ST or OBC, provided a conscious decision
is taken with regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
33. The applicant though belonging to OBC has not availed any B
relaxations or concessions admissible to OBC candidates. She was a
general merit candidate, thus not entitled to OBC reserved seat in her
State. She was allocated to Himachal Pradesh cadre as a general category
candidate falling in Rule 7(3) in view of her merit position as a general
category candidate.
C
34. Regulation 7 of the Competitive Examination Regulations
framed under the Recruitment Rules does not make mention of OBC
candidate in the list of successful candidates published under Rule 7 but
such regulation has to be read in terms of Rule 7 of the Recruitment
Rules as such regulations have been framed in exercise of the powers
conferred under Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules. It may be a situation D
of casus omissus but since such regulation is not in tune with Rule 7 of
the Recruitment Rules, it has to give way to the statutory rules framed.
The regulations cannot be in conflict with the statutory rules. Therefore,
the non-inclusion of OBC in Regulation 7 is inconsequential for the
purposes of the present appeals as the case of the applicant falls within E
Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules.
35. We find that Sachindra Pratap Singh was the first OBC
candidate who had availed concessions or relaxations as OBC and was
allocated to Maharashtra cadre, being the first State in Group I in the
scheme of grouping of States or cadres. Therefore, the applicant had no F
claim appointment to the Maharashtra cadre. She had no right to the
Kerala cadre as well as the second post in the vacancies in the State of
Kerala was meant for an OBC outsider candidate. Since Kerala was
second last State in Group IV, the OBC candidate at Serial No. 131 was
allocated such cadre.
G
36. The appeal before this Court in Satya Prakash was against
an order passed by the Delhi High Court reported as Satya Prakash v.
Union of India19. In the aforesaid case, an OBC candidate was not
appointed to any of the Central Services as the Union had taken the
19
Union of India, 2002 SCC On Line Del 1000 = (2002) 99 DLT 749 (DB) H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A candidates appointed on general merit though belonging to OBC to
determine the percentage of appointed OBC candidates. The Delhi High
Court was examining CSE-1996 which was a notification inviting
applications for 28 different categories of services. In fact, rules mentioned
in the said judgment are not the rules but clauses provided in the
advertisement. The core question and the answer to the question posed
B
are as under:
“12. The core question which arises for consideration in these
writ petitions, is as to whether those OBC candidates were selected
on merit and were placed in the list of open category candidate
having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Ritesh R. Sah’s
C case (supra), could still for the purpose of placement be considered
to be OBC candidate leading to deprivation of the other OBC
category candidates from allocation of service whatsoever.
13. ....So far as the reserved category candidates are concerned,
the recommendations of the Commission have to be considered
D having regard to the relaxed standard applied in their case, as is
evident from Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 16 aforementioned. The proviso
appended to Rule 16 in no uncertain terms states that such
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes, who had been recommended
E by the Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard, i.e.,
on merit, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for
the respective reserved category candidates.
xxx xxx xxx
15. The decision of the Apex Court in Ritesh R. Sah’s case (supra),
F as also the proviso to Rule 16 clearly prohibit deprivation of the
benefit of the reservation only because some reserved category
candidates had also been selected on merit inasmuch as they were
not to be treated as reserved category candidates except for a
limited purpose, namely, for the purpose of allocation of service,
G but thereby OBC candidates cannot be deprived of their right to
obtain allocation of any service.
…. It cannot be contended that both for the purpose of allocation
of job as also for the purpose of computation as regards number
of OBC category candidates those OBC candidates selected on
merit although were to be treated as general category candidates
H
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 427
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

but for all intent and purport they would still be considered to be A
the reserved category candidates.
xxx xxx xxx
17. …..The Apex Court clearly held that if a candidate is entitled
to be admitted on the basis of his own merit then such admission
should not be counted as against the quota of the Scheduled Castes B
or Scheduled Tribes or any other reserved category since the
same would be against the constitutional mandate of Article 16(4)
of the Constitution of India.”
37. It is the appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed
by this Court on 05.04.2006 in Satya Prakash.The clause in the C
advertisement published on 3.12.2005 is prior to the Judgement of this
Court, therefore, certain clauses in the Rules and/ or advertisement may
not be consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney.
But such question does not arise for consideration of this Court; therefore,
it is not necessary to decide the legality and validity of the Rules. D
38. The notification dated 3.12.2005 inviting applications for CSE-
2006 was in terms of Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules and also the
allocation circular. The proviso to clause 16(1) of the notification
contemplates that if an SC/ST or OBC candidate has not availed any
concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or selection criteria at any E
stage of the examination, and if after taking into account the general
qualifying standards is found fit for recommendation by the Commission,
they shall not be recommended against the vacancies reserved for SC/
ST and OBC.
39. It is sub-clause (2) of Clause 16 of CSE-2006 which gives an F
option to SC/ST or OBC candidate recommended against unreserved
vacancies to be adjusted against reserved vacancies, if by this process
they get a service of higher choice in order of their preference. Thus, 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 G
if that improves the selection of service. In fact, all the candidates
including the applicant were put to notice as to how the cadre allocation
would be made. But still, the applicant chose to claim home state though
she was not eligible to be considered for such state. She had taken
chance in appearing in the selection process but when she was
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A unsuccessful in getting the home cadre, attempts were made to get into
the home cadre on wholly untenable grounds.
40. In the light of Rajiv Yadav, the allocation of cadre is not a
matter of right. 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 be
B 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
C 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. Therefore, the Tribunal
or the High Court should have refrained from interfering with the
allocation of cadre on the argument of alleged violation of the allocation
circular.
D 41. We find the observation of the High Court that there was a
lack of consultation with the State of Kerala is not acceptable. Such
consultation was not required to be carried out as discussed above. The
finding of the High Court that the determination of total vacancies to be
89 was affected without any regard to cadre gap and on the ground that
E the requisition by the State Government was ignored as the rules and
regulations warranted a mandatory consultation with the State of Kerala.
We find that such conclusions are not supported by the documents on
record including the additional affidavit filed by the Union. The findings
of the High Court that the action of the Union was arbitrary as the
allocation to certain States was more than the cadre gap is again not
F sustainable as the 89 vacancies were allocated to the States on the basis
of the norms as disclosed in the brief notes submitted before this Court.
42. The judgment of the Kerala High Court in Jyothilal again
proceeds on the assumption that consultation was required to be carried
out with the State of Kerala though the candidate was allocated to the
G State of Orissa. The judgment proceeds on basic fallacy that consultation
has to be with the State to whom the officer is to be allocated, not with
the State with whom the officers claim allocation.
43. Before parting, we would like to observe that in terms of Rule
6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an
H application before the Central Administrative Tribunal is required to be
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 429
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

filed where the applicant is posted for the time being or the cause of A
action wholly or in part has arisen. The applicant in her Original Application
has not laid any foundation as to how the Ernakulam Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to entertain an Original
Application filed by her. It appears that the applicant had chosen the
Ernakulam Bench for the reason that she was permanent resident of
B
Kerala State. The applicant was not posted in the State of Kerala on the
date of filing of the application. The applicant has not explained how the
cause of action either wholly or partly had arisen within the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal at Kerala.
44. This Court in a judgment reported as Oil and Natural Gas
Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.20 was examining filing of a C
writ petition before the Calcutta High Court for the reason that the writ
petitioner would suffer loss at its registered office which is situated within
the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. It may be stated that broadly
language of Article 226 and Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1987 is similar. This Court considering Article 226
D
(2) of the Constitution held as under:
“8. From the facts pleaded in the writ petition, it is clear that
NICCO invoked the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court on the
plea that a part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial
jurisdiction. According to NICCO, it became aware of the contract
proposed to be given by ONGC on reading the advertisement E
which appeared in the Times of India at Calcutta. In response
thereto, it submitted its bid or tender from its Calcutta office and
revised the rates subsequently………….. Therefore, broadly
speaking, NICCO claims that a part of the cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court because it became F
aware of the advertisement in Calcutta, it submitted its bid or
tender from Calcutta and made representations demanding justice
from Calcutta on learning about the rejection of its offer. The
advertisement itself mentioned that the tenders should be submitted
to EIL at New Delhi; that those would be scrutinised at New
Delhi and that a final decision whether or not to award the contract G
to the tenderer would be taken at New Delhi. Of course, the
execution of the contract work was to be carried out at Hazira in
Gujarat. Therefore, merely because it read the advertisement at
Calcutta and submitted the offer from Calcutta and made
20
(1994) 4 SCC 711 H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A representations from Calcutta would not, in our opinion, constitute
facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. So also the
mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a
reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of
the cause of action. Besides the fax message of 15-1-1993, cannot
be construed as conveying rejection of the offer as that fact
B
occurred on 27-1-1993. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
even if the averments in the writ petition are taken as true, it
cannot be said that a part of the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.”
45. This Court in a Judgment reported as Alchemist Ltd. v. State
C Bank of Sikkim21, reviewing the entire case law to determine as to
when the cause of action wholly or in part arises held that even if a small
fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court,
the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition.
This Court held as under:-
D “37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio
laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for
the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-
petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action,
one has to consider whether such fact constitutes
E a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is
no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action
arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it
must be a “part of cause of action”, nothing less than that.”

F 46. The Full Bench of the Jurisdictional High Court in a judgment
reported as Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant 22 was
considering an Original Petition filed before the Kerala High Court by a
Head Constable working in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at
Bokkaro Steel Plant. In the said case, the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority were situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
G High Court. The applicant claimed that since the order of appellate
authority was received within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court,
therefore, it will have the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition.
The Court held as under:
21
(2007) 11 SCC 335
H 22
1999 SCC OnLine Ker 366
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS 431
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

“29. …….It appears to us that the decisions in Swaika At best A
receipt of the order or communication only gives the party a right
of action based on the cause of action arising out of the action
complained of. When that action complained of takes place outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and an appeal therefore
is dismissed by an authority located outside the jurisdiction of the
B
High Court cause of action wholly arises outside the jurisdiction
of the High Court and Art. 226(2) of the Constitution cannot be
invoked to sustain a Writ Petition in this High Court on the basis
that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction
of this court, merely because the appellate order communicated
from the seat of the appellate authority was received while the C
petitioner was residing or working within the jurisdiction of this
court Acceptance of the argument that the situs of the receipt of
the order will determine the jurisdiction can lead to a position where
a litigant would be in a position to choose his own court for the
purpose of redressal of his grievance. All that he need do is to
D
move over to a particular place for receiving the communication
from the appellate authority and then approach the High Court of
that place with a plea that that court had jurisdiction because the
order of the appellate authority was served on him while he was
residing within the jurisdiction of that High Court No litigant can
have a right to choose the court for seeking relief and the mere E
introduction of clause 2 of Art. 226 does not alter that position.”
47. It may be noticed that Union had not raised objection about
the entertainment of an Original Application filed by the applicant before
the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It appears
that the applicant filed an application before the Ernakulam Bench for F
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. At
this stage, the applicant is not being non-suited on the ground that the
Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. G
In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the orders
passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original
application filed by the applicant is accordingly dismissed.

Devika Gujral Appeals allowed. H