Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1911 OF 2006

G. Srinivas Rao                                …     Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                    … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of  

the Constitution against the order dated 03.02.2005 of the  

Division  Bench  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  

dismissing  Writ  Petition  No.8072  of  2004  filed  by  the  

appellant.

2. The facts very briefly are that the appellant, a general  

candidate not belonging to any reserved category, took the  

Civil  Services Examination, 1998 conducted by the Union  

Public Service Commission and he secured 95th rank and  

was appointed to the IPS and was allocated to the Manipur-

Tripura Joint Cadre on 27.10.1999.  Respondent No.4, who

2

as  an  OBC  candidate,  also  took  the  Civil  Services  

Examination,  1998  and  secured  133rd  rank  and  was  

appointed  to  the  IPS  and  was  allocated  to  the  Andhra  

Pradesh  Cadre  on  27.07.1999.   The  appellant  filed  O.A.  

No.155 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,  

Hyderabad Bench,  contending  that  instead  of  respondent  

no.4 he should have been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh  

Cadre  and  that  the  allocation  of  respondent  no.4  to  the  

Andhra  Pradesh  Cadre  was  bad  in  law,  unjust  and  

unsustainable.  The appellant prayed for a direction from  

the Tribunal to the respondent no.1 to allocate him to the  

Andhra Pradesh Cadre.  The Tribunal, however, did not find  

any  irregularity  in  the  roster  system  followed  by  the  

respondent  no.1  in  making  the  allocations  and  by  order  

dated  25.07.2001  dismissed  the  O.A.   The  appellant  

challenged  the  order  dated  25.07.2001  of  the  Tribunal  

before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution  

in  Writ  Petition  No.17902  of  2002  and  contended  that  

though there was in the year 1999 a vacancy for a general  

candidate  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Cadre  to  which  the  

appellant  could  be  allocated,  this  was  converted  to  a  

3

vacancy for  OBC candidate and the respondent no.4 was  

allocated to this vacancy in the Andhra Pradesh Cadre.  The  

appellant  also  contended before  the  High Court  that  this  

vacancy for a general candidate was converted to a vacancy  

for OBC candidate on the ground that relevant data for five  

years in respect of OBC was not available though actually  

such data was available.  Since this aspect of  the matter  

had not been considered by the Tribunal, the High Court  

allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal  

and  remanded  the  case  to  the  Tribunal  for  fresh  

consideration.  

3. After  the  case  was  remanded  to  the  Tribunal,  the  

respondent no.1 filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking  

leave to file  an additional  affidavit  and pursuant to leave  

granted  by  the  Tribunal,  the  respondent  no.1  filed  an  

additional  affidavit.   In  this  additional  affidavit,  the  

respondent no.1 stated that a total number of 36 vacancies  

in  the  IPS were  to  be  filled  up  on the  basis  of  the  Civil  

Services Examination, 1998 and out of total number of 36  

vacancies,  21  vacancies  were  to  be  filled  up  by  general  

candidates,  10  vacancies  were  to  be  filled  up  by  OBC  

4

candidates and 5 vacancies were to be filled up by SC/ST  

candidates  in  accordance  with  the  reservation  provisions  

and the roster points and in May 1999, the vacancies were  

distributed category-wise in the following manner:-

S.L Cadre Total  vacan -cies

27% OBC  rounded off

22.5 % SC/ST  rounded off

Genera l

1. Andhra Pradesh 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 2. Assam

Meghalaya 1 .27 0 .225 0 1

3. Bihar 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 4. Gujarat 3 .81 1 .675 1 1 5. Haryana 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 6. Himachal  

Pradesh 1 .27 0 .225 0 1

7. J & K 3 .81 1 .675 1 1 8. Karnataka 3 .81 1 .675 1 1 9. Kerala 2 .54 1 .450 0 1

10. Madhya Pradesh 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 11. Maharashtra 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 12. Manipur Tripura 4 1.08 1 .900 1 2 13. Nagaland 2 .54 1 .450 0 1 14. Orissa 2 .54 1 .450 0 1 15. Punjab 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 16. Rajasthan 4 1.08 1 .900 1 2 17. Sikkim 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 18. Tamil Nadu 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 19. AGMU 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 20. Uttar Pradesh 1 .27 0 .225 0 1 21. West Bengal 1 .27 0 .225 0 1

Total 36 8 5 23

Respondent  no.1  further  stated in the  additional  affidavit  

that  since  as  per  the  distribution  made  in  the  aforesaid  

table, the total number of vacancies for general candidates  

worked  out  to  be  23  instead  of  21  and  total  number  of  

5

vacancies for OBC candidates worked out to be 8 instead of  

10, 2 vacancies for general candidates had to be converted  

to 2 vacancies for OBC candidates.  The respondent no.1  

has  also  stated  in  the  additional  affidavit  that  as  the  

relevant  data  for  the  last  five  years  in  respect  of  OBC  

candidates  was  not  available  with  the  respondent  on  

28.05.1999  when  the  entire  exercise  of  allocation  was  

completed and approved by the competent authority and the  

data  for  four  years,  i.e.  from  the  Civil  Services  

Examinations, 1994 to Civil  Services Examinations, 1995,  

was  available,  the  earlier  advice  of  the  Department  of  

Personnel and Training in Annexure R-1 to the additional  

affidavit  of  the  respondent  no.1  was  followed  and  two  

general  vacancies  from  the  first  two  States  in  the  

alphabetical order, one from the Andhra Pradesh Cadre and  

one from the Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre, were converted  

to OBC vacancies and the result was that respondent no.4  

was allocated to the OBC vacancy of Andhra Pradesh Cadre.  

The Tribunal  in its  order dated 09.01.2004 accepted this  

explanation  of  the  respondent  no.1  and  rejected  the  

argument  of  the  appellant  that  the  respondent  no.1  had  

6

arbitrarily taken a lower ranking candidate in preference to  

high ranking general candidate while making the allocation  

to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre.  Aggrieved, the appellant filed  

Writ Petition No.8072 of 2004 before the Andhra Pradesh  

High Court and contended that despite availability of data  

pertaining to OBC candidates for five years, the respondent  

no.1 did not consider the same while making the allocation.  

In the impugned order, however, the High Court held that  

this  apprehension  of  the  appellant  was  factually  without  

any basis and did not find any fault with the order of the  

Tribunal.  In the impugned order, the High Court also took  

the view that the appellant was required to implead all the  

candidates of his batch of IPS, as respondents in the O.A. as  

well as in the Writ Petition but had not done so and thus  

relief could not be granted to the appellant.  The High Court  

further held in the impugned order that the allocation of the  

appellant to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre was intimated  

to him by a letter dated 21.10.1999, but he filed the O.A. in  

2001 and by the time the impugned order was passed, the  

officers would have undergone attachment training and a  

7

wholesale  or  extensive review of  the cadre allocation at  a  

belated stage would not be conducive to public interest.  

4. Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant, submitted that this Court has held in R.  

K.  Sabharwal  and Others v.  State  of  Punjab  and  

Others     [(1995)  2  SCC  745]  that  the  prescribed  

percentage  of  reservation  of  posts  for  backward  

classes  cannot  be  varied  or  changed.   He  

submitted  that  in  M.  Nagaraj v.  Union  of  India  

[(2006) 8 SCC 212] a Constitution Bench of  this  

Court  has  further  observed  that  the  reservation  

provision should not lead to excessiveness so as to  

breach the ceiling limit of the reserved quota.  He  

submitted that the Secretary, Government of India,  

Ministry  of  Personnel  &  Training  Administrative  

Reforms and Public Grievances, has in his letter  

dated  31.05.1985 (hereinafter  referred to  as  ‘the  

letter  dated  31.05.1985)  laid  down  the  broad  

principles  of  allocation  on  the  basis  of  roster  

system  which  are  to  be  followed  while  making  

allocation of officers appointed to All India Services  

8

and  a  reading  of  these  principles  of  allocation  

would show that the vacancies are to be reserved  

in  various  cadres  according  to  prescribed  

percentage  and,  therefore,  the  prescribed  

percentage  of  reservation  including  that  of  OBC  

cannot be exceeded.  He submitted that in Union of   

India v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and Others [(1994) 6 SCC  

38]  this  Court,  after  examining  the  principles  of  

cadre  allocation  in  the  letter  dated  31.05.1985,  

held  that  the  “Roster  System”  ensures  equitable  

treatment to both the general candidates and the  

reserved  categories.   He  referred  to  the  Chart  

annexed  as  Annexure  P/19  to  show  that  the  

percentage  of  OBC  candidates  allocated  to  the  

Andhra  Pradesh  Cadre  from  Civil  Services  

Examination 1994 to  1998 was  as  high as  33%  

which was far in excess of the 27% reservation in  

favour of  OBC.   He vehemently argued that the  

Chart  in  Annexure  P/19  further  shows  that  in  

various other State cadres the total percentage of  

OBC candidates allocated from the Civil  Services  

9

Examinations of 1994 to 1998 was less than 27%  

and,  therefore,  the  respondent  no.1  should  not  

have converted the vacancy for general candidate  

in  Andhra  Pradesh Cadre  to  a  vacancy for  OBC  

candidate.  According to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, since  

there is breach of the principles of allocation and  

the roster system as laid down in the letter dated  

31.05.1985 and the allocation of respondent no.4  

to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre was in excess of the  

27% quota for OBC, this is a fit case in which this  

Court  should  quash  the  allocation  of  the  

respondent  no.4  and  instead  direct  respondent  

no.1  to  allocate  the  appellant  to  the  Andhra  

Pradesh Cadre.   

5. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor  

General,  on  the  other  hand,  submitted  that  the  

impugned  order  of  the  Tribunal  should  not  be  

disturbed  as  it  contains  good  reasons  for  not  

interfereing in the allocation of the officers of the  

1999  batch  of  IPS.   He  submitted  that  while  

distributing the vacancies in an All India Service,  

10

the Central Government has to consider plurality  

of choices and allocating two OBC vacancies to the  

cadres  of  States  which  were  first  two  in  the  

alphabetical order is one of the choices open to the  

Central  Government  when  relevant  data  for  the  

last  five  years  in  respect  of  the  OBC candidates  

was not available when the exercise of allocation  

was  completed  and  approved  by  the  competent  

authority.  He submitted that the decision of this  

Court in  R. K. Sabharwal  and Others v.  State  of   

Punjab  and  Others (supra),  cited  by  Mr.  Ranjit  

Kumar,  relates  to  maintenance  of  roster  for  the  

purpose  of  reservation  of  posts  and  may  have  

relevance for the appointment to the IPS but has  

no  relevance  to  allocation of  members of  the  All  

India  Service  to  different  cadres  after  their  

appointment.

6. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing  

for respondent no.4, contended that the equitable  

distribution  of  vacancies  for  general  candidates  

and reserved candidates is required to be ensured  

11

by the letter dated 31.05.1985 over a period of time  

and  not  every  time  the  allocation  is  made  to  a  

cadre and thus the contention of the appellant that  

the allocation of the respondent no.4 to the Andhra  

Pradesh  Cadre  has  not  ensured  such  equitable  

distribution is not correct.   He further submitted  

that in any case the allocations of respondent no.4  

to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre and the appellant to  

the Manipur-Tripura Cadre were made as far back  

as in the year 1999 and the appellant filed the O.A.  

after  two  years  in  2001  and  that  too  after  he  

accepted the allocation and the High Court rightly  

held  that  the  allocation  made  in  the  year  1999  

could  not  be  disturbed  by  a  challenge  to  the  

allocations  in  2001.   He  finally  submitted  that  

respondent no.4 has been working in the Andhra  

Pradesh  Cadre  since  1999  and  should  not  be  

disturbed at this stage by this Court.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned  

counsel for the parties and we find that Rule 3 of  

the  IPS  (Cadre)  Rules,  1954  provides  that  each  

12

State and a group of States will have a State cadre  

or Joint Cadre respectively of the IPS and Rule 5 of  

the  Cadre  Rules  provides  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.  We further find that in Para 3 of  

the  letter  dated  31.05.1985 the  broad  principles  

which are to be followed for allocation on the basis  

of roster system have been indicated by the Central  

Government.   Clauses (2) of Para 3, on which Mr.  

Ranjit  Kumar  placed  reliance,  is   extracted  

hereinbelow:-  

“(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.”

It will be clear from Clause (2) of Para 3 of the letter dated  

31.05.1985  that  the  vacancies  for  Scheduled  Castes  and  

13

Scheduled Tribes are to be reserved in the various cadres  

according to the prescribed percentage 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.  What  

is,  therefore,  contemplated by Clause (2) of  Para 3 of  the  

letter dated 31.05.1985 is that a roster for each cadre, with  

vacancies  earmarked  for  outsider  and  insider  and  for  

general candidates and reserved candidates is maintained  

and allocations  of  outsider,  insider,  general  and reserved  

candidates are made to these earmarked vacancies.  It will  

be further clear from Clause (2) of Para 3 that the vacancies  

for the reserved categories are not to exceed the prescribed  

percentage for the reserved category ‘in the various cadres’.   

8.   The case of the respondent no.1 in the additional  

affidavit  filed  before  the  Tribunal  was  that  in  

accordance with the reservation provisions and the  

roster points as explained by this Court in  R. K.  

Sabharwal  and  Others v.  State  of  Punjab  and  

Others (supra), 36 candidates were selected to the  

14

IPS, out of whom 21 were general candidates, 10  

were  OBC  candidates  and  5  were  SC/ST  

candidates.   These  36  candidates  were  to  be  

allocated to the  different State  and Joint  Cadres  

and  were  initially  proposed  to  be  distributed  in  

May,  1999 in the  manner given in the  Chart  in  

Para 3 of this judgment, but the authorities found  

that by distribution of vacancies, only 8 out of 10  

selected OBC candidates could be accommodated  

in  the  different  cadres  and  23  instead  of  21  

selected  general  candidates  would  get  

accommodated  in  the  different  cadres.   It  was,  

therefore, necessary for the competent authority to  

increase  2  vacancies  to  adjust  2  more  OBC  

candidates  and reduce  2  vacancies  proposed  for  

general candidates so that ultimately the 10 OBC  

candidates could be allocated to 10 vacancies in  

different cadres and 21 general candidates could  

be  allocated  to  21  vacancies  in  different  cadres.  

The competent authority accordingly diverted two  

vacancies  for  general  candidates,  one  from  the  

15

Andhra Pradesh Cadre and one from the Assam-

Meghalaya  Joint  Cadre,  to  vacancies  for  

accommodating two more OBC candidates selected  

for  appointment.   The  reason  for  choosing  the  

Andhra Pradesh Cadre and the Assam-Meghalaya  

Joint  Cadre  for  converting  two  vacancies  for  

general  candidates  to  vacancies  for  OBC  

candidates  is  that  when  the  allocation  was  

finalized  by  the  competent  authority  on  

28.05.1999,  relevant  data  in  respect  of  OBC  

candidates was available  only  for  four  years,  i.e.  

from  Civil  Services  Examination,  1994  to  Civil  

Services Examination, 1997, but was not available  

for  the  fifth  year  because allocation for  the  fifth  

year  on  the  basis  of  Civil  Services  Examination,  

1998  was  yet  to  be  notified  and  ultimately  got  

notified in October,  1999.  Respondent No.1 has  

further  explained  in  his  additional  affidavit  filed  

before the Tribunal that the Andhra Pradesh Cadre  

and  the  Assam-Meghalaya  Joint  Cadre  were  

chosen  for  diversion  of  the  two  vacancies  for  

16

accommodating two OBC candidates in accordance  

with  an  earlier  advice  of  the  Department  of  

Personnel and Training annexed to the affidavit is  

Annexure R-1 to follow the alphabetical order while  

choosing  the  States  for  decrease  or  increase  in  

OBC vacancies in the absence of data for 5 years  

in relation to OBC allocation.   

9. We fail to appreciate how data for 5 years in respect of  

allocation of OBC candidates was relevant for making the  

allocation  when  Clause  (2)  of  Para  3  of  the  letter  dated  

31.05.1985  required  that  a  roster  in  each  cadre  with  

vacancies  for  insider,  outsider,  general  and  reserved  

candidates  not  exceeding  prescribed  percentage  was  

required  to  be  maintained  and  allocations  of  candidates  

selected in the All India Services were to be made in these  

vacancies  earmarked  for  insider,  outsider,  general  

candidates or reserved candidates.  As has been held by this  

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

(supra),  the roster  system ensures equitable  treatment to  

both the  general  candidates and reserved candidates and  

hence  the  roster  system  cannot  be  by-passed  on  some  

17

ground or the other which may result in unfair treatment to  

either general candidates or reserved candidates in violation  

of their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the  

Constitution.

10.   Nonetheless, we find that the appellant was allocated  

to  the  Manipur-Tripura  Cadre  on  27.07.1999  and  was  

intimated about such allocation by letter dated 02.10.1999.  

Instead of challenging the allocations made in 1999 at the  

earliest,  the  appellant  filed  the  O.A.  before  the  Tribunal  

only in 2001 by which time the 36 candidates including the  

respondent no.4, who had been selected and appointed to  

the IPS on the basis of  Civil  Services Examination,  1998  

and  had  been  allocated  to  different  cadres,  had  already  

joined their respective cadres and undertaken training in  

their respective States.  The High Court thus held in the  

impugned order that the wholesale or extensive review of  

the cadre allocation at a belated stage was not conducive to  

public  interest.   For  granting  relief  to  the  appellant,  the  

Tribunal  or  the  Court  will  have  to direct  the  respondent  

No.1  to  undertake  afresh  the  exercise  of  allocation  in  

accordance with the roster system as provided in the letter  

18

dated 31.05.1985 and allocate  the  36 officers  of  the  IPS  

appointed on the basis of the Civil Services Examinations,  

1998 and such an exercise  will  disturb the  allocation of  

several members of the IPS.   

11. In our considered opinion, therefore, the High Court  

was right in taking a view that no relief can be granted to  

the  appellant  on the  ground of  delay on the  part  of  the  

appellant in moving the Tribunal.  The appeal is therefore  

dismissed.  No order as to costs.

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

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, July 19, 2011.