Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2550 OF 2010

C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma                     …     Appellant

Versus

Avinash Mohanty & Ors.                             … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2551 OF 2010

Union of India & Ors.                           …     Appellants

Versus

Avinash Mohanty & Anr.                             … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These two appeals by way of special leave under Article  

136 of the Constitution are against the impugned judgment  

of  the Division Bench of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court  

dated 22.03.2007 in Writ Petition No. 458 of 2007.

2

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  in  the  Civil  Services  

Examination, 2004 conducted by the Union Public Service  

Commission,  Avinash  Mohanty  and  Vikrama  Varma  

amongst others were selected for appointment to the Indian  

Police  Service  (for  short  ‘the  IPS’)  and  were  offered  

appointments  to  the  IPS  in  2005.   By  notification  dated  

19.01.2006 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home  

Affairs,  the  candidates  who  had  been  selected  and  

appointed to the IPS on the basis of the results of the Civil  

Services Examination, 2004 were allocated to different State  

cadres.   By  this  notification,  Avinash  Mohanty,  who  had  

secured  the  45th rank  in  the  Civil  Services  Examination,  

2004  was  allocated  to  the  Chhattisgarh  cadre,  whereas  

Vikrama Varma, who had secured 201st rank in the Civil  

Services  Examination,  2004  was  allocated  to  the  Andhra  

Pradesh cadre.  Avinash Mohanty made representations to  

the  authorities  against  his  allotment  to  the  Chhattisgarh  

cadre and claimed that he should have been allocated to the  

Andhra Pradesh cadre.  When his representations did not  

yield  any results,  Avinash Mohanty  filed O.A.  No.  286 of  

2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad  

3

Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’)  on 03.05.2006 contending  

that  the  guidelines  and  norms  in  the  letter  dated  

31.05.1985 of the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry  

of  Personnel  and  Training  (for  short  ‘the  letter  dated  

31.05.1985’)  have  not  been  followed  while  making  the  

allocations  and  the  allocation  of  Vikrama  Varma  to  the  

Andhra  Pradesh cadre  was arbitrary  and in  his  place  he  

should have been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre.  

After considering the pleadings of the parties and hearing  

learned counsel  for  the  parties,  the  Tribunal  by its  order  

dated 24.11.2006 dismissed the O.A.   Aggrieved,  Avinash  

Mohanty filed Writ Petition No. 458 of 2007 under Article  

226  of  the  Constitution  before  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  

Court  and  by  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  

allowed  the  Writ  Petition,  quashed  the  allocation  of  the  

Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre and directed  

the Union of India to reconsider the allocation of Avinash  

Mohanty and Vikrama Varma in accordance with law.  

3. Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for Vikrama Varma,  

the appellant in C.A. No. 2550 of 2010, submitted that this  

Court  in  Union  of  India vs.  Rajiv  Yadav,  IAS  and  Others  

4

[(1994) 6 SCC 38] while considering the allocation of officers  

appointed to the Indian Administrative  Services (for short  

‘the  IAS’)  has  held  that  under  Rule  5  of  the  Indian  

Administrative  Service  (Cadre)  Rules,  1954,  the  Central  

Government  is  under  no  obligation  to  have  options  or  

preferences from the officers concerned and this Rule made  

the Central Government the sole authority to allocate the  

members of the service to various cadres and therefore a  

person  appointed  to  an  All  India  Service,  having  various  

State cadres, has no right to claim allocation to a State of  

his choice  or to his home State.   He submitted that this  

position of law has been reiterated by this Court in Union of  

India vs.  Mhathung Kithan and Others  , etc.   [(1996) 10 SCC  

562].   He  also  relied  upon  the  judgment  of  the  Division  

Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Srinivas Rao  

vs.  Union of India & Ors. (2005 (2) ALT 728 (D.B.) which,  

while referring to the law laid down in  Rajiv  Yadav’s case  

(supra), has further observed that the Union of India was  

required to operationalise a plurality of Government choices  

in  the  matter  of  allocation  of  officers  to  different  State  

cadres and in the  very nature of  things,  it  is  not always  

5

possible to fulfill all the policy objectives of Union of India in  

every factual circumstance and in every recruitment year.  

He also referred to the observations made in the Division  

Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the  

case  of  G.  Srinivas Rao  (supra)  that  considering  the  

complexities  of  accommodating  the  multitude  of  federal  

policy choices, allocation is a daunting task and there are  

no ready solutions which can perfectly be tailored to fit such  

complex problems.  Considering all  these multiple factors  

which have to be kept in mind while making the allocations  

of members of the IPS to different cadres, the High Court in  

the present case should not have quashed the allocation of  

Vikrama  Varma  to  the  Andhra  Pradesh  cadre.   He  

submitted that the main reason given by the High Court in  

the  impugned  judgment  is  that  in  the  current  roster  (3rd  

Cycle) already nine OBC candidates had been allocated to  

the Andhra Pradesh cadre before the allocation of Vikrama  

Varma,  who  was  an  OBC  candidate,  and  allocation  of  

Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre would make a  

total  of  ten OBC candidates in the 30 point roster which  

was 6% excess over the 27% reservation in favour of OBC  

6

candidates.  He submitted that this Court has held in the  

case of Rajiv Yadav (supra) that allocation is not to be tested  

by  the  reservation  provision  under  Article  16(4)  of  the  

Constituion and therefore 27% reservation in favour of OBC  

candidates was not relevant in the matter of allocation and  

the  reasoning  given  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  

judgment is erroneous.   

4. Mr.  Mohan  Parasaran,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General appearing for the Union of India, the appellant in  

C.A.  No.  2551  of  2010,  submitted  that  the  direct  

recruitment in the IPS is done on an All India basis under  

the  Indian  Police  Service  (Recruitment)  Rules,  1954  (for  

short  ‘the  Recruitment  Rules’)  and  hence  reservation  in  

such  direct  recruitment  is  also  on  All  India  basis.  He  

submitted  that  after  direct  recruitment  is  over  and  the  

selected general and reserved candidates are appointed to  

the IPS under Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre)  

Rules,  1954,  the Central Government makes allocation of  

cadres  to  the  members  of  the  IPS  and  Rule  5  does  not  

provide for reservation.  He submitted that this Court has,  

therefore, held in the case of Rajiv Yadav while interpreting  

7

Rule  5  of  the  Indian  Police  Service  (Cadre)  Rules,  1954,  

which is similarly worded, that the principles of allocation  

contained in the letter dated 31.05.1985 do not provide for  

reservation on appointments or posts and the question of  

testing the principles of allocation on the anvil of Article 16  

(4) of the Constitution does not arise.  Relying on Para 32 of  

the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India before the  

Tribunal in O.A. No. 286 of 2006, he submitted that at the  

time  of  allocation  of  cadres  to  the  candidates  for  

appointment  to  IPS  on  the  basis  of  the  Civil  Services  

Examination 2004, a total of 8 candidates were allocated to  

the Andhra Pradesh cadre from the last five Civil Services  

Examinations (1999-2003), out of which 2 (27%) were OBC  

and hence there was neither any excess nor any shortfall in  

respect of allocation of OBC candidates in the IPS cadre of  

Andhra  Pradesh.   He  submitted  that  from  Civil  Services  

Examination 2004 a total number of 2 candidates were to  

be  allocated  to  the  Andhra  Pradesh  cadre  and  as  per  

prescribed percentage, one vacancy each had to be filled up  

from General  category  and  OBC category  and  as  per  30  

point roster prepared as per the letter dated 31.05.1985, the  

8

OBC vacancy was meant for an insider OBC candidate and  

thus  the  same  has  been  filled  up  by  allocating  Vikrama  

Varma,  an  OBC candidate.   He  submitted  that  the  High  

Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  has  not  correctly  

appreciated the roster maintained by the Government and  

has instead observed that there was clear arbitrariness in  

the operation of the roster system.  Mr. Parasaran finally  

submitted  that  the  directions  of  the  High  Court  in  the  

impugned judgment for reconsideration of cadre allocation if  

followed will have a cascading effect on the service.   

5. Mr. Sunil Kumar, appearing for Avinash Mohanty, the  

respondent  no.1  in  the  two  appeals,  on  the  other  hand,  

submitted that in Rajiv Yadav’s case (supra) this Court has  

held that the roster system in the letter dated 31.05.1985  

ensures equitable treatment to both the general candidates  

and the reserved candidates.  He submitted that the table  

indicating the correct position of vacancies filled from Civil  

Services Examination 1994 to 2003 furnished in Para 28 of  

the counter affidavit dated 22.03.2007 of the Union of India  

filed in the High Court has been extracted in the impugned  

judgment of the High Court, which will go to show that four  

9

vacancies  had  been  assigned  to  insider  OBCs  and  five  

vacancies  had been assigned  to  outsider  OBCs and thus  

nine OBC candidates had already been allocated in a total  

of 29 vacancies in the Andhra Pradesh cadre and there was  

already an excess over 27% reserved in favour of the OBC  

candidates.  He  submitted  that  for  this  reason  the  High  

Court  took the  view that  the 10th vacancy in the  Andhra  

Pradesh cadre in the 30 point roster, if allocated to an OBC  

candidate  would  be  clearly  a  violation  of  the  equitable  

principle  of  allocation  contained  in  the  letter  dated  

31.05.1985 and would be arbitrary.  He submitted that the  

directions  of  the  High  Court  for  reconsideration  of  cadre  

allocation  of  Avinash  Mohanty  and  Vikrama  Varma  are  

justified in the facts of the case and the directions are to be  

followed in their cases only and will not have any cascading  

effect on the service.   

6. Rules  3  and  5  of  the  IPS  (Cadre)  Rules,  1954,  are  

quoted herein below:  

“3. Constitution of Cadres- 3(1) There shall  be constituted for each State or group of States  an Indian Police Service Cadre.

10

3(2) The Cadres so constituted for a State or a  group of States are hereinafter referred to as a  ‘State Cadre’ and a ‘Joint Cadre’ respectively.

5. Allocation of members to various cadres–  5(1)  The  allocation  of  cadre  officers  to  the  various cadres shall  be made by the Central  Government  in  consultation  with  the  State  Government or State Governments concerned.

5(2)  The  Central  Government  may,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  State  Governments  concerned,  transfer  a  cadre  officer  from one  cadre to another cadre.”

It will be clear from Rule 3 that each State and a group of  

States will have a State cadre or Joint Cadre respectively of  

the IPS and it  will  be further clear from Rule  5 that the  

Central  Government  in  consultation  with  the  State  

Government or State Governments concerned has the power  

to make allocation of IPS officers to various cadres.   

7. The  broad  principles,  which  are  to  be  followed  for  

allocation, have been indicated in Para 3 of the letter dated  

31.05.1985 and are extracted herein below:  

“(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  every allocation, the break-up of vacancies in a  cadre  between  'outsiders'  and  'insiders'  will  be  

11

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  and  Scheduled  Tribes  will  be  grouped  together  and the percentage will be added. Distribution of  reserved  vacancies  in  each  cadre  between  'outsiders' and 'insiders' will be done in the ratio  2:1. This ratio will be operationalised by following  a cycle 'outsider, 'insider', 'outsider' as is done in  the case of general candidates.

(3) Allocation of 'insiders', both men and women,  will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to  their  willingness  to  be  allocated  to  their  home  States

(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 places on the chart as  explained below:

(i)  All  the State Cadres/Joint Cadres should be  arranged in alphabetical  order and divided into  groups which, on the basis of the average over a  period of time, are taking roughly equal number  of  candidates  each.  On  the  basis  of  average  intake during the last 4 years, the group could be  as follows:  

Group I :      Andhra Pradesh, Assam-Meghalaya,      Bihar and Gujarat

Group II :    Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu                     & Kashmir Karnataka, Kerala and  

12

                  Madhya Pradesh

Group III:    Maharashtra, Manipur-Tripura,     Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan     and Sikkim

Group IV :   Tamil Nadu, Union Territories, Uttar               Pradesh and West Bengal.

(ii)  Since the number of Cadres/Joint Cadres is  21, the cycles will be 1-21, 22-42, 43-63 and so  on.

(iii) The 'insider' quota should then be distributed  among the States and assigned to different cycles  of  allotment.  For  example,  if  a  State  gets  4  'insider' candidates, they should go to the share  of the State in their respective cycles and if there  are  2  'insider'  candidates  from the  same cycle,  they should be treated as going to the State in  two successive and so on.

(iv) The 'outsider' candidates should be arranged  in order of merit and allotted to the State cadres  in cycles as described in (v) below

(v)  In  the  first  cycle,  State  Cadre/Joint  Cadre  which  have  not  received  'insider'  candidates  should be given one candidate each in order of  merit of 'outsider' candidates. The process should  be repeated in successive cycles, each successive  cycle beginning with the next successive group of  States, e.g., the second cycle should begin from  Group II  States,  the  third  cycle  with  Group III  States and the fourth cycle with Group IV States  and  the  first  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  

13

happens, the candidate next below him should be  exchanged with him.

(vi)  For  the  succeeding  year,  the  State  cadres  should be arranged again in alphabetical  order  but  with  Group  I  of  the  previous  year  at  the  bottom,  i.e.,  the  arrangement  will  begin  with  Group II on top. In the third year, Group III will  come on top and so on

(vii)  In  the  case  of  candidates  belonging to  the  reserved  category,  such  of  those  candidates,  whose position in the merit list is such that they  could have been appointed to the service even in  the absence of any reservation, will be treated on  par  with  general  candidates  for  purposes  of  allotment  though  they  will  be  counted  against  reserved vacancies. In respect of other candidates  belonging  to  the  reserved category  a  procedure  similar  to  the  one  adopted for  general  category  candidates would be adopted. In other words, a  separate  chart  should be prepared with similar  grouping of States and similar operational details  should  be  followed.  If  there  is  a  shortfall  in  general 'insiders' quota it could however be made  up by 'insider' reserved candidates.”

8. It will be clear from a reading of clause (1) of the broad  

principles  of  allocation  in  the  letter  dated  31.05.1985  

quoted above, that vacancies in every cadre are required to  

be earmarked for outsiders and insiders in the ratio of 2:1  

and in order to avoid problems relating to fractions and to  

ensure that this ratio is maintained, over a period of time, if  

not during every allocation, the breakup of vacancies in a  

14

cadre  between  outsiders  and  insiders  will  have  to  be  

calculated  following  this  cycle  of  ‘outsider’,  ‘insider’,  

‘outsider’.  Clause (2) of the broad principles of allocation in  

the  letter  dated  31.05.1985  further  provides  that  the  

vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are to  

be  reserved  in  the  various  cadres  according  to  the  

prescribed  percentage  and  for  the  purpose  of  this  

reservation, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are to  

be grouped together and the percentage to be added and  

distribution  of  reserved  vacancies  in  each  cadre  between  

outsiders and insiders are to be done in the ratio of 2:1 and  

this  ratio  is  to  be  operationalised  by  following  a  cycle  

outsider, insider, outsider as is done in the cases of general  

candidates.   

9. In Rajiv Yadav’s case (supra), Rajiv Yadav appeared in  

the  Civil  Services  Examination  held  in  1988 and he  was  

selected for appointment to the IAS and he was placed at  

Serial No.16 in the order of merit.  Though he belongs to the  

Union  Territory  of  Delhi  and  he  opted  for  the  Union  

Territory’s cadre, he was allocated to the Manipur-Tripura  

cadre.   He  challenged  the  order  allocating  him  to  the  

15

Manipur-Tripura  cadre  before  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal,  New Delhi,  raising  various  contentions  and the  

Tribunal held that the power conferred by Article 16(4) of  

the Constitution is only for making provision for reservation  

of appointment or posts in favour of any backward class of  

citizens  not  adequately  represented in  the  services  under  

the State and cannot be extended to allocation of members  

of  the IAS to different cadres.   The Tribunal  further held  

that clause (2) of the principles of allocation gave an added  

benefit to IAS probationers belonging to Scheduled Castes  

and Scheduled Tribes and this was not permissible under  

Article 16(4) of the Constitution.  This Court did not approve  

of  this  reasoning  of  the  Tribunal  and  held  that  the  

principles  of  allocation  as  contained  in  clause  (2)  of  the  

letter dated 31.05.1985 do not provide for reservation for  

appointments or posts and as such the question of testing  

the principles of allocation on the anvil of Article 16(4) of the  

Constitution does not arise.  In Para 6 of the judgment in  

Rajiv Yadav’s case, the Court explained that in compliance  

with the statutory requirements and in terms of Article 16(4)  

of the Constitution, 22½ % reserved category candidates are  

16

recruited to the IAS and having done so, both the categories  

are to be justly distributed amongst the States.   The Court  

also held that when a person is appointed to the All India  

Service,  having  various  State  cadres,  he  has  no  right  to  

claim allocation to a State of his choice or to his home State  

and the Central Government is under no legal obligation to  

have options or even preferences from the officer concerned  

and  Rule  5  of  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  (Cadre)  

Rules,  1954,  made  the  Central  Government  the  sole  

authority to allocate the members of the service to various  

cadres.  This  position  of  law  was  reiterated  in  Mhathung  

Kithan  and  Others (supra).   The Court,  however,  has not  

held in Rajiv Yadav or in Mhathung Kithan and Others that  

such authority of the Central Government can be exercised  

arbitrarily  or  in  a  manner  which  is  not  equitable  to  the  

general  or  reserved  category  candidates  selected  for  

appointment to an All India Service.  On the contrary, the  

Court  has held in  Rajiv  Yadav that the  roster  system as  

contained in the letter dated 31.05.1985 ensures equitable  

treatment to both the general candidates and the reserved  

candidates.   

17

10.    In  fact,  the  object  of  the  principles  of  allocation  

indicated in different clauses in the letter dated 31.05.1985  

is not only to implement the policy having 2 outsiders and 1  

insider in each cadre, but also to ensure that general and  

reserved candidates selected and appointed to the All India  

Service  get  a  fair  and  just  treatment  in  the  matter  of  

allocation to different cadres.  This will be clear from clause  

(2)  of  the  letter  dated  31.05.1985  which  states  that  the  

vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the  

various  cadres  should  be  according  to  the  prescribed  

percentage  and  from  clause  (3)  which  states  that  the  

allocation of insiders, both men and women, will be strictly  

according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be  

allocated to their home States.  This will also be clear from  

clause 4(vii) which explains how the candidates belonging to  

the reserved category and the general category will be dealt  

with.   These principles have been laid down in the letter  

dated  31.05.1985  because  while  making  allocations  of  

different  candidates  appointed  to  the  service  to  different  

State cadres or Joint cadres, the Central Government has  

also to discharge its constitutional obligations contained in  

18

the  equality  principles  in  Articles  14  and  16(1)  of  the  

Constitution.  A member appointed to the All India Service  

has no right to be allocated to a particular State cadre or  

Joint  cadre,  but  he  has  a  right  to  a  fair  and  equitable  

treatment in the matter of allocation under Articles 14 and  

16(1) of the Constitution.    

11.   Coming now to the facts of this case, we find that the  

High  Court  has  in  the  impugned  judgment  extracted  the  

table of vacancies filled up from Civil Services Examination  

1994  –  2003,  as  furnished  in  Para  28  of  the  counter  

affidavit dated 22.03.2007 filed by the Union of India before  

the High Court, which is extracted hereunder :

S.No. CSE Total Vacancies Insider Outsider

GE N OBC SC/ST

GE N OBC SC/ST

1. 1994 7 - 1 1 3 1 1

2. 1995 5 1 1 - 1 1 1

3. 1996 6 2 - - 1 2 1

4. 1997 2 - - - 2 - -

5. 1998 1 - 1 - - - -

6. 1999 1 - - - 1 - -

7. 2000 1 - - - 1 - -

8. 2001 1 - - 1 - - -

9. 2002 1 - - - - 1 -

19

10. 2003 4 - 1 - 2 - 1

Tota l 29 3 4 2 11 5 4

After considering this table, the High Court has held in the  

impugned  judgment  that  even according  to  the  Union  of  

India, as against a total of 29 vacancies 9 OBC candidates  

(4 insiders + 5 outsiders) had been allocated to the Andhra  

Pradesh cadre from amongst the successful candidates of  

Civil Services Examinations from 1994-2003 and if Vikrama  

Varma, an insider OBC candidate, was to be allocated to the  

Andhra Pradesh cadre from the selected candidates of the  

Civil  Services  Examination,  2004,  a  total  of  10  OBC  

candidates would be allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre  

in  the  30  point  roster,  making  the  percentage  of  OBC  

candidates to 33 1/3, which was a variation of 6% in excess  

and by any standard was not a marginal variation.  

12.    The Union of India, in para 32 of its counter affidavit  

before the Tribunal  in O.A.No.286 of 2006, has, however,  

stated that from the five Civil Services Examinations (1999-

2003)  a  total  of  8  candidates  appointed  to  the  IPS  were  

allotted to the Andhra Pradesh cadre, out of which 2 were  

OBC candidates and 2 out of 8 does not exceed 27% and,  

20

therefore, there was neither any excess nor any shortfall of  

allocation  of  OBC candidates  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh IPS  

cadre.  We fail to appreciate this calculation of percentages  

on  reserved  category  candidates  allotted  to  the  Andhra  

Pradesh  cadre  worked  out  on  the  basis  of  number  of  

candidates allotted to the Andhra Pradesh cadre from the  

five Civil Services Examinations, from 1999 – 2003, when in  

the very same counter affidavit of the Union of India filed  

before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 286 of 2006, in para 21, it is  

clearly stated that a 30 point roster in respect of Andhra  

Pradesh was being maintained for allocation of insider and  

outsider,  as  well  as,  reserved  and  general  candidates  in  

accordance with clauses (1) and (2) of Para (3) of the letter  

dated 31.05.1985.  It appears to us that only with a view to  

somehow justify the allocation of Vikrama Varma, an OBC  

candidate,  to  the  Andhra  Pradesh  cadre  from  the  Civil  

Services Examination, 2004, the Union of India has taken  

the figures of allocation of candidates selected for the IPS in  

the five Civil Services Examinations of 1999 to 2003 instead  

of taking the figures of appointments to the vacancies in the  

30  point  roster  starting  from  the  1994  Civil  Services  

21

Examination till 2003 Civil Services Examinations.  

13.  Admittedly,  Avinash Mohanty had secured a higher  

rank  than  Vikrama  Varma  in  the  Civil  Services  

Examination, 2004 and both Avinash Mohanty and Vikrama  

Varma are insiders.  Clause (3) of Para 3 of the letter dated  

31.05.1985 states that allocation of insiders, both men and  

women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to  

their  willingness  to  be  allocated  to  their  home  States.  

Hence, Avinash Mohanty was required to be considered for  

allocation to the Andhra Pradesh cadre if he had given his  

willingness for  being allocated to his home State,  Andhra  

Pradesh,  before  Vikrama  Varma  could  be  considered  for  

such  allocation.   If,  however,  the  vacancy  for  which  

consideration was being made was a vacancy for an insider  

OBC  candidate  in  the  30  point  roster,  Vikrama  Varma  

would have preference over Avinash Mohanty.  But the High  

Court has come to a finding that the number of vacancies in  

the 30 point roster filled up by OBC candidates from Civil  

Services Examinations 1999-2003 were 9 and had exceeded  

the 27% reservation for OBC candidates and hence there  

could  not  be  an  insider  OBC vacancy  in  which  Vikrama  

22

Varma could  have  been allocated.   The  High  Court  was,  

therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that allocation  

of  Vikrama  Varma  to  the  Andhra  Pradesh  cadre  was  in  

violation  of  the  guidelines  contained  in  the  letter  dated  

31.05.1985 and was clearly arbitrary and not equitable.   

14.    In our view, complexity of a decision making process  

cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the  

Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has  

been violated.  When such a grievance is made before the  

Court,  the  authorities  have  to  justify  their  impugned  

decision by placing the relevant material before the Court.  

As has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in  

M. Nagaraj vs.  Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212] at 277 in  

Para 118:  

“The  constitutional  principle  of  equality  is  inherent in the rule of law. However, its reach is  limited because its primary concern is not with  the content of the law but with its enforcement  and  application.  The  rule  of  law  is  satisfied  when laws are applied or enforced equally, that  is,  even-handedly,  free  of  bias  and  without  irrational  distinction.  The  concept  of  equality  allows  differential  treatment  but  it  prevents  distinctions  that  are  not  properly  justified.  Justification needs each case to be decided on  case-to-case basis.”

23

We are also of  the considered opinion that the impugned  

order of the High Court quashing the allocations of Vikrama  

Varma and Avinash Mohanty and directing reconsideration  

of  their  allocation  will  not  have  cascading  effects  on  the  

service because the High Court has quashed the allocation  

of only two members of the IPS, namely, Avinash Mohanty  

and Vikrama Varma, and not of other members of the IPS  

and directed reconsideration of their allocation.    

15.     We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals  

and  we  dismiss  the  same  and  vacate  the  interim orders  

staying the operation of the impugned judgment.  No order  

as to costs.  

.……………………….J.                                                            (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, July 12, 2011.