Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the case of Union of India v. Union of India.

Facts of the Case

Arya Sree. T who was the 1st Respondent was selected to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) by the Union Public Service Commission through examinations conducted in the year 2016. She secured Rank No.18 amongst the list of persons found eligible for appointment to the IFS and belongs to the General Category. 

 Surjith P, who was the 3rd Respondent secured Rank No.80 amongst the list of persons found eligible for appointment to the IFS and belonged to the Other Backward Community (OBC) category. During the medical examination, it was found that he was unfit for appointment on the ground of not meeting the minimum height requirements.

Out of the three people from Kerala who qualified for IFS in that year (including the aforesaid 3rd Respondent Surjith P), only the 1st Respondent and one, Hari Krishnan P.J, who was also a General Category candidate with Rank No.53 were given letters of offer to join the IFS. Based on the Cadre Allocation Policy applicable in the relevant year, there was one insider vacancy and three outsider vacancies. 

The said insider vacancy was notified as being set apart to be filled up with a Scheduled Caste Candidate. As per the policy, if there was no Schedule Caste Candidate, it would be converted as one available for a Scheduled Tribe Candidate and, if a Scheduled Tribe Candidate was also not available, it gets converted to be filled up by an OBC candidate. Further, if no OBC candidate was available, the said vacancy was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to the General Category. 

It was the specific case of the 1st Respondent that no insider candidate was allocated to Kerala in the relevant year. Since the 1st Respondent was the OBC candidate, who qualified in the examination, namely, the 3rd Respondent, who would have otherwise obtained the insider vacancy on account of the absence of any SC/ST candidate, was found ineligible for reasons indicated earlier. 

The 1st Respondent, therefore, claimed that in the absence of SC/ST/OBC candidates, the insider vacancy for the relevant year should have been filled up by a General Candidate and since the 1st Respondent had obtained the 18th rank, it ought to have been offered to her. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner contended that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction in interfering with the cadre allocation orders issued by the competent authority strictly in terms of the Cadre Allocation Policy which was applicable at that point of time. It was also argued that the selected officers have no right to insist that they should be allocated to a particular cadre and since a member of the Indian Forest Service is liable to serve anywhere in India, the 1st Respondent had no legal right to claim that the insider vacancy available in the relevant year must be filled up by permitting an inter cadre transfer as was sought for by the 1st Respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondents contended that the 1st Respondent, Arya Sree. T had every right to be adjusted against the insider vacancy of the relevant year as that vacancy ought to have been filled up by appointing her, as, in the absence of any SC/ST/OBC candidate that vacancy should have been reverted to a General Candidate.

Court’s Observation

The Court, in this case, observed that this was an issue where the Petitioners have admitted that there was an insider vacancy for IFS in Kerala during the relevant year. It was also not disputed that in the absence of any SC/ST candidate, the said vacancy was set apart for being filled up by the 3rd Respondent who was an OBC candidate. It was also not disputed that in the absence of SC/ST/OBC candidates, the vacancy would revert to a General candidate.

Court’s Decision

The Court found no reason to interfere with the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the Bench made it clear that the order of the Tribunal and this judgment was not to be treated as a precedent. 

The Court stated that the decision was being rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and since the candidate allocated to fill up the insider vacancy for the relevant year could not be appointed since he did not meet the prescribed height requirements. The Court directed that the order of the Tribunal which it upheld, shall be complied with by allocating the 1st Respondent to any existing or the next arising insider vacancy in the IFS Cadre in Kerala.  

Click here to read the judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -