IFS Cadre Allocation | Home State Must Be First Preference To Claim Insider Cadre: Delhi High Court

​​The Delhi High Court has held that an officer seeking allocation to their home State cadre under the All India Services Cadre Allocation Policy must necessarily indicate the home State as their first preference, and that merely expressing willingness to serve in the home State or listing it as a lower preference does not create any enforceable right.

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain observed,

“In our view, the respondent was rightly not considered for the insider vacancy for his Home Cadre, that is, the State of Rajasthan, as he had chosen the same as his 6 th preference of his cadre allocation…”

The Court thus set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order which had directed the Centre to allocate the Rajasthan cadre to an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer by creating a supernumerary post.

The case arose from the cadre allocation of an officer who, while filling the application form for IFS Examination 2009, indicated willingness to work in his home State of Rajasthan, but in his final cadre preference list, placed Rajasthan as the sixth preference, with Himachal Pradesh as the first.

Owing to his merit position and the operation of the Cadre Allocation Policy, he was eventually allotted the Nagaland cadre.

CAT held that since Rajasthan was the officer's home State and an insider vacancy existed, he ought to have been considered for allocation there even though it was his sixth preference.

In Centre's appeal against this order, the High Court undertook a detailed analysis of Clauses 5 to 8 of the Cadre Allocation Policy, 2008, and held that the scheme of the policy clearly requires candidates who wish to claim allocation to their home cadre as insiders to give it first preference.

The Court illustrated,

“Let us say, a candidate, like in the present case the respondent, had not given his Home State as the first preference but as the 6th preference. The candidate, because of merit, was entitled to one of the first five preferences that he had given as an outsider candidate. In case the preference of Home State is to prevail, such a candidate would necessarily be given the home cadre though that was not his choice, over and above the first five preferences. This would deny such a candidate of his right to be allocated a cadre in accordance with his merit and preference. The Cadre Allocation Policy does not provide for the same.”

It also relied on C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Avinash Mohanty & Ors. (2011) where the Supreme Court held that a member appointed to the All India Service has no right to be allocated a particular State cadre, but only has a right to a fair and equitable treatment in the matter of allocation under Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

As such, the Court found that the CAT had erred in directing allocation of Rajasthan cadre to the Respondent-officer and set aside its order.

Appearance: Ms.Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr.Shailendra Mishra, Ms.Mansi Aggarwal and Mr.Chanakya Kene, Advs for Petitioner; Mr.Sagar Saxena, Mr.Krishnandu Haldar and Mr.Abu Hassan Usmani, Advs for Respondent

Case title: Union Of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh

Case no.: W.P.(C) 77/2015

Click here to read order