Arundhati Nair is currently an Editor Trainee at LJRF Voice and a member of LJRF Kottayam Chapter.
INTRODUCTION
Civil servants are officials appointed in a civil post who are neither judicial nor political. Civil servants play a prominent role in the progress of a country .India is a democratic country with constitution as its supreme law of the land. We elect the representatives to rule the country, and through civil servants who stands strong are the rules and law implemented. Sardar Vallabhai Patel quoted civil servants as the ‘steel framework of the country’. Civil services are in the limelight among the youth , countless youngsters are attending the exam to get recruited into the civil service. Civil service is a commitment toward the country . after being a successful candidate ,there will arise a tendency to work in their home town which is common nowadays among the successful candidates. Supreme court once again cemented the need of candidates to work for the country and not to prioritize home cadre in Union of India v. A. Shainamol.
FACT
The applicant A. Shainamol is a successful IAS candidate of the Civil Service Examination-2006. The candidate backed 20th rank in the national rank list. She belong to Muslim community and also to Other Backward Class. She was allotted Himachal Pradesh Cadre after Union seeking consent of the Himachal Pradesh Government. The applicant approach judiciary with the contention that she was eligible to get allotted to the Kerala cadre and to set aside the cadre allotted to her.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The applicant initially filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985, before the Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the Union to allot the candidate against the outsider OBC vacancy in Maharashtra cadre, by virtue of her merit, over the candidate already identified and allotted.
Both, applicant and Union were aggrieved and filed a Writ petition before the Honorable High Court of Kerala. Nature of grievances were different. The union challenged the allotment of the candidate to outside OBC vacancy in the state of Maharashtra and the candidate challenged denial of her appointment to Kerala cadre by virtue of her merit and number of vacancies in the state. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the decision of the Tribunal to accommodate the candidate to the Maharashtra cadre and also allowed the initial petition of the applicant to declare her eligible to Kerala Cadre . The Union aggrieved with the order passed by the High Court of Kerala filed an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court Of India.
ISSUES:
The issues in this case are twofold,
- 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 which candidate is allocated?
- Whether the candidate is eligible to avail consideration under OBC category?
DECISION
The foundation of the claims raised by the applicant is that there was no consent taken or consultation made with the State of Kerala. The applicant was allocated to the Himachal Pradesh cadre after consulting with the Sate of Himachal Pradesh. The Rule 5(1) of the Cadre Rules mandates only the consultation with the state to which appointment is to be made which was fulfilled in the allotment of the applicant. Nowhere in the Cadre Rules make it necessary to consult the state from which the applicant hail from while appointing in the union service . Thus the mandate is the consultation with state to which candidate is assigned to which was satisfied in regard to the appointment of the applicant and the Himachal Pradesh state has approved the allocation of the applicant and thus the supreme court it is a valid allotment .
The applicant belongs to Muslim community which falls under OBC category . As per the Proviso to Rule 7(3) of the Recruitment Rules and the proviso to clause 16(1) in the notification inviting for CSE-2016 , the candidates were informed that SC /ST or OBC candidate who have not availed any concession or relaxation will be treated as General Category candidates. The applicant has not availed any concession or relaxation and she was appointed to Himachal Pradesh Cadre as a General Category candidate and thus she won’t be provided with any benefits under reserved category. The supreme court has also dismissed the observation made by the Kerala High Court regarding appointment due to existence of vacancies , the Supreme Court held even if there is vacancy, unreserved category cannot be allotted to a reserved posts and once the applicants name appear in the merit list they are deprived with the authority to claim the appointment. The Supreme Court relied on Union of India and ors v. Rajiv Yadav IAS, were it was held that a selected candidate had a right to consider the appointment of IAS but he had no right to be allocated to the cadre of his choice or home state.
SUGGESTION
Civil servants are the backbone of administration of a country. It is an inheritance from the British colonial rule . They are entrusted with works which help the country to walk the path of development, from administration to implementing laws. The growth of a country depends on the ability of a civil servant. Civil servants are presupposed to work with diverse fields from agriculture to education. In a country like India which has a vast diverse population and culture ,even within a state ,to administer properly the administrator should be well aware of the geographical, economical and cultural conditions of the particular cadre so as to provide services efficiently. The optimum result from the idea of civil servants can be pulled out only when the successful candidates are appointed in the cadre of their choice or home town. They would be well versed in regard to their home town which in turn help to deliver effective and proper administration as they would be able communicate effectively owing to absence of language barrier and would be aware of the history and culture of the cadre which would be a helping hand in the process of administration. If the successful candidates are appointed to their home cadre , liberty of the civil servants would be existing while justice would be served to the citizens. The curtailment from appointing civil servants to the home cadre does not improve their efficiency in work, as they have to face a number of challenges and hindrances in an unknown land and has to cope up with the desire to serve from the home cadre. Though a majority of the successful civil servants are denied their choice to serve the nation from their home cadre, there are a majority who has scored high ranks , who gets the opportunity to serve from their home cadre , this biased approach violates the fundamental right enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Its been seven decades since independence and since the civil servant cadre rules has been introduced its high time to relook and amend as obligatory.
CONCLUSION
The Honorable Supreme Court has ascertained that the successful candidates of civil service exam has no right to choose their cadre. The cadre is allotted by the central government in consultation with the state tow which allotted. The candidates are mandated to serve from the allotted cadre for the integrity and development of the country
REFERENCE
- Rajiv Yadav v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 14 SCC (6)38
- Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477
- Case analysis, Selected IAS candidates have no right to be allowed to cadre of their choice or to home state(October,23 2021)
http://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ias-candidate-cadre-allocated-home-state-184145
- Sanya Dingara , Centre v. State, Rule vs convention – who really controls IAS officers