Avinash Mohanty IPS v. Union of India

unbridled discretion is a question in our view which is no more res integra and covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav [1] . Before we examine the ratio of Rajiv Yadav’s case (supra 1), it is also profitable to take note of a Semi Official Letter dated 30/31 May 1985 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pensions bearing letter No. S.O. 13013/5/84-AIS(1). The said letter was taken note of even by the Supreme Court both in Rajiv Yadav’s case (supra 1) and in Union of India v. Mhathung Kithan [2] ’s case. The Supreme Court examined the history and background, the substance and the legal efficacy of the said letter. We do not propose to extract the entire content of the letter here except the relevant paragraphs of the said letter. At para 3 it is stated that “the broad principles of allocation on the basis of roster system would be as follows : (1) The vacancies in every cadre will be earmarked for `outsiders’ and `insider’ 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 allocation, the break-up of vacancies in a cadre between `outsiders’ and `insiders’ will be 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 percentages will be added. Distribution of reserved vacancies in each cadre between `outsiders’ and `insiders’ to be done in the ratio of 2:1. This ratio will be rationalized by following a cycle `outsider’, `insider’, `outsider’ as is done in the case of general candidates. Allocation of `insider’, both men and women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be allocated to their home States.” The other portions of the letter will be considered at the appropriate place in the judgment. Coming to the efficacy of this letter, it is the stand of the Union of India in its counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal in OA No. 286 of 2006 at para 12 that the Central Government is the sole authority to allocate the candidates. Though it is not expressly stated in the said counter affidavit, but it is suggested at para 18 purporting to draw strength from an authority of the Supreme Court in G.Fernandez v. State of Mysore [3] and also in Union of India v. S.A.Abbas [4] that such guidelines do not confer upon Government employee a legally enforceable right. Before we examine the facts and merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the above referred two decisions is required to be understood. In our view, Rajiv Yadav’s case (supra) never laid down any principle that the above mentioned letter has no legal efficacy. In fact, the Administrative Tribunal took such a view in its decision the correctness of which was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Union of India. At para 4 of the said judgment, their Lordships took note of the conclusion of the Administrative Tribunal in the following words : “(4) THE tribunal came to the conclusion that the letter dated 31/5/1985 (quoted above) was only an interdepartmental communication and there being no other notification/order/circular issued by the central government notifying the principles of allocation as a policy-decision, the said letter could not be taken to be an executive order of the government laying down the so-called "roster System" providing for the principles of allocation. It was, therefore, held by the tribunal that the contents of the letter dated 31/5/19855 did not have any legal sanction to be considered as "established policy guidelines in the matter". ….. At para 5 the Supreme Court made a categoric statement that “We are not inclined to agree with the same.” The Supreme Court further examined the scheme of Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules of Indian Administrative Service which is in pari materia with the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and held as follows : (5) ……….. Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules provides that the allocation of the members of the INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE to various cadres shall be made by the central government in consultation with the State government or the State governments concerned. Sub-rule (2 of Rule 5 further provides that a cadre officer can be transferred from one cadre to another. When a person is appointed to an 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. The central government is under no legal obligation to have options or even preferences from the officer concerned. Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules makes the central government the sole authority to allocate the members of the service to various cadres. It is not obligatory for the central government to frame rules/regulations or otherwise notify "the principles of allocation" adopted by the government as a policy. The letter dated 31/5/1985 shows that the central government has always been having guidelines either in the shape of "limited zonal preferences system" or "roster System" for the exercise of its discretion under Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules. Simply because the principles of allocation called "roster System" were not notified, it is no ground to hold that the same a r e non est and the central government cannot follow the same. In any case the "roster System" has stood the test of time. It was operative during the years 1966 to 1977 and again it is being followed from 1985 batch onwards. The fact that the "roster System" is being followed in practice by the central government for all these years, is in itself a sufficient publication of its principles.” In our view the Supreme Court never held that the Union of India has an unbridled or unfettered discretion in the matter of allocation of successful candidates at the IAS/IPS recruitment. The Supreme Court of course took note of the fact that the language of Rule 5 did not oblige the Union of India to call for either options or preference of the officers in the process of the allocation to the various cadres. It further took note of the fact that though there is no such obligation (from the content of the above mentioned letter), it is established that the Central Government had always been having guidelines for the exercise of its discretion under Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules. The Supreme Court categorically held disagreeing with the Administrative Tribunal that the mere fact the principles of allocation contained in the said letter are not notified cannot lead to a conclusion that the same are non est the Central Government cannot follow the same. The Supreme Court further added that the very fact that the roster system contained in the said letter has been followed in practice by the Union of India for a long period is in itself a sufficient publication of its principles. In other words, the content of the letter is as good as a notified rule. para 6 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court examined the purpose of the principles contained in the said letter and observed that “the principles of cadre allocation thus ensure equitable distribution of reserved candidates among all the cadres.” It is very vehemently argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri Gopalan relying on the earlier portion of para 5 extracted above, that the content of the letter does not create any enforceable right in favour of any one of the selected candidates and this Court should not undertake an examination of the correctness of the allocation of either the writ petitioner or the 4th respondent. We regret our inability to accept the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. In our view when the Supreme Court said that Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules makes the sole authority to allocate the members, the Supreme Court took note of the language of the rule. The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that such un-canalized discretion is required to be regulated as otherwise such un-canalized authority would lead to arbitrary administrative action, which is incongruous with the requirements of the Rule of Law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The question in the context of the above mentioned letter is not whether the said letter confers any enforceable right on any candidate like the petitioner, but whether the Union of India is required to act fairly, in a manner which is not arbitrary and in accordance with the established practice followed by it over a long period of time in making such allocations. It was held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [5] as follows: “ …….. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Seaton (1959) 359 US 535 : 3 L Ed 2d 1012 where the learned Judge said : "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged. ...... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. .......This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword." This Court accepted the rule as valid and applicable in India in A. S. Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (1975) 3 SCR 82 : (AIR 1975 SC 984) and in subsequent decision given in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 3 SCR 619 : (AIR 1975 SC 1331), Mathew, J., quoted the above-referred observations of Mr. Justice Frankfurter with approval. It may be noted that this rule, though supportable also as emanating from Article 14, does not rest merely on that article. It has an independent existence apart from Article 14. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. If we turn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the equality clause of the United States Constitution but evolved it purely as a rule of administrative law. Even in England, the recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is evident from what is stated at pages 540-41 in Prof. Wade's Administrative Law 4th Edition. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law. Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions increasing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the executive government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. The attainment of socio-economic justice being a conscious end of State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relationship of direct encounter with State power-holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. Whatever be the concept of the rule of law, whether it be the meaning given by Dicey in his "The Law of the Constitution" or the definition given by Hayek in his "Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of liberty" or the exposition set forth by Herry Jones in his "The Rule of Law and the Welfare State", there is, as pointed out by Mathew, J., in his article on "The Welfare State, Rule of Law and Natural Justice" in Democracy, Equality and Freedom "substantial agreement in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found". It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some right or denial of some privilege.” Once again the Supreme Court considered the legal efficacy of the said letter in Mhathung Kithan’s case (supra). At para 8 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that “the Tribunal was, therefore, not right in disturbing the implementation of this policy as per the roster.” From the content of letter (extracted earlier), the vacancies in every State cadre are required to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1 by Outsider and Insider respectively. The nature of the said roster is stated by the Supreme Court at para 6 of Mhathung Kithan’s case. “6. In the light of this policy a continuous 30-point roster was provided starting from the examination held in 1983. The roster follows the cycle, “outsider, insider, outsider ..”. In any given year the roster starts with the point where the roster ended in the previous year….” insider, outsider, outsider, This position has not changed even subsequent to Mhathung Kithan’s case. All the parties before us are in agreement on this aspect. Admittedly, the said 30-point roster even in the case of Andhra Pradesh commenced from the year 1983. According to the writ petitioner the current 30 point roster commenced with the allotment of successful candidates belonging to the IPS in the year 1994 Central Services Examination and from that point 28 candidates belonging to the IPS Cadre have been allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the date of the allocation in dispute before us. According to the petitioner, the 29th and 30th points of the said roster are filled up by the successful candidates at the 2004 CSC Examination. Both in the original application and in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner made a categoric averment which read as follows : “That in the current roster in operation from 1994 CSE, in respect of AP 28 candidates have been allotted to State of A.P. till Civil Services Examination 2003, out of which 16 belong to reserve category and 12 belong to non reserve category called general candidates as shown below : ALLOTMENT AS PER ROSTER CANDIDATE OF 94 CSE CSE YearTotal as Insider Outsider in Roster OC BC SC/ST TOTAL OC BC SC/ST TOTAL 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 6 5 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 28 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 Nil 1 Nil Nil 1 Nil 1 9 2 1 1 2 1 2 9 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 3 4 2 Nil 1 1 Nil 1 3 19 Neither in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal nor in the counter affidavit filed before this Court the 1st respondent ever made a candid statement either accepting or denying the allegation of the petitioner that 28 candidates belonging to IPS have been allotted in the current roster by the time of the allocation of the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein to the various State cadres. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent dated 23.2.2007 in the present writ petition at para 28, it is stated as follows : “28. With regard to averment made in para 10, it is submitted that the current roster is in operation since 1983 and not from 1994 as submitted by the applicant. The averments made by the applicant in para; 10 is not factually correct. The correct position of the vacancy filled up from Civil Service Examination 1994 to 2003 are given in the following table : S.No. CSE Total Vacancy Insider Outsider GEN OBC SC/ST GEN OBC SC/ST

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 7 5 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 - - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - 3 1 1 2 - 1 1 - - 1 1 2 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -

10. 2003 TOTAL 4 29 - 3 1 4 - 2 2 11 - 5 1 4 The respondent’s skirted the question. On an examination of the entire material on record, i.e., the pleadings of the respondent both before the Tribunal and this Court, we are of the confirmed opinion that the 1st respondent misled both the Tribunal and this Court. We shall give our reasons for this statement a little later. In view of the equivocation in the pleadings of the respondent No.1, we thought it fit to ascertain the real factual position by summoning the original roster maintained by the 1st respondent and by an order dated 6.3.2007 we summoned the original roster. The relevant portions of the roster which pertain to the State of Andhra Pradesh were photocopied under an order of this Court and made part of the record. With great dissatisfaction we must place on record that the roster maintained by the Union of India leaves much to be desired. Entries are made in pencil occasionally. With that kind of maintenance of the record, the assertion of the Union of India that this Court should not undertake an examination of the allocation made to the cadres as under Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules the Government of India is the sole authority in our view is only to be examined in the correct perspective. From the said roster, it is clear that the roster commenced in the year

1983. The 1st 29-points were filled up by the year 1988. The 30th point came to be filled up by a successful candidate of 1989 Civil Service Examination and the next 30-point roster commenced from the year 1989 with seven other successful candidates of 1989 Civil Service Examination. The said roster was completed till the 29th point by the allotment of eight successful candidates belonging to the IPS of

1993. The 30th point of the said roster (2nd cycle) was filled up with a successful candidate belonging to IPS of 1994. From 1994, the 3rd cycle of 30-point roster commenced. Six successful candidates of IPS were allotted to the 1st six points of the fresh roster. In other words, though in the year 1994, seven successful candidates belonging to the IPS were allotted to the cadre of Andhra Pradesh, the 1 candidate was allotted against the last point (30th point) in the previous roster, the other six were allotted against the 1st six points of current roster (3rd of the cycles commencing from 1983). allotment made in the current roster according to the records maintained is as follows : Sl. No. Point in the Roster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Whether for “Outsider” or Insider” Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Outsider Insider Outsider Year of Examination Remarks 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 It is obvious from the above extract that the 29th and 30th points of the roster which commenced in 1994 were allotted to two successful candidates in the 2004 Examination as asserted by the petitioner. It is indicated that the 29th point is an Insider point and the 30th point is an Outsider point. We shall now demonstrate the inconsistencies in the pleadings of the respondents. It is admitted in para 22 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the OA that from the Civil Service Examination 2004, a total number of 02 candidates had to be allotted to the IPS cadre of Andhra Pradesh. It is also an admitted fact and asserted by the respondents in the counter filed before the Tribunal at para 8 that from Civil Service Examination 1994, 27% of the vacancies are required to be reserved in direct recruitment in all, All India Services which includes IPS by candidates belonging to other backward classes. Its further stated by the respondents in para 22 of the counter filed before the Tribunal as follows : “…. As per 30 Point Reserve Roster, the Insider vacancy had to be filled up by allocation of an OBC category candidate. As such, the other vacancy meant for general candidate had to be filled up by allocation of an outsider general candidate.” We searched in vain through the entire counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal to find any assertion as to the two roster points that are filled up in the instance case, but the respondents never made any clear statement in this regard. However, in the counter affidavit dated 23.2.2007 filed before this Court in the present writ petition, it is stated at para 28 as follows : “28. With regard to averment made in para 10, it is submitted that the current roster is in operation since 1983 and not from 1994 as submitted by the applicant. The averments made by the applicant in para; 10 is not factually correct. The correct position of the vacancy filled up from Civil Service Examination 1994 to 2003 are given in the following table : S.No. CSE Total Vacancy Insider Outsider GEN OBC SC/ST GEN OBC SC/ST

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. TOTAL 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 7 5 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 29 - 1 2 - - - - - - - 3 1 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 4 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 2 3 1 1 2 - 1 1 - - 2 11 1 1 2 - - - - - 1 - 5 1 1 1 - - - - - - 1 4 From the content of the above extracted portion of the counter affidavit, it is clear that though the respondents do not make any categoric statement regarding the roster point against which the allocation of the 4th respondent to the cadre of Andhra Pradesh is made they give an impression that from 1994 Civil Service Examination, 29 candidates belonging to the IPS have been allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh. They impliedly dispute the averments made by the petitioner in para 10 of his affidavit that only 28 candidates were allotted against roster points which commenced in the year 1994 and give an impression and it was specifically argued by the respondents that in fact of the above mentioned 29 candidates have been allotted against the 29 points of the current roster. In which case the two candidates that were allotted from out of the successful candidates of 2004 Civil Service Examination are necessarily required to be Outsiders as admittedly the 30 point in the running roster of Outsider-Insider-Outsider would be available only for an Outsider and the next roster necessarily commences with an Outsider. In which case it is not known how the 4th respondent who is admittedly an Insider came to be allotted against one of the Outsider vacancies. On the other hand, if the petitioner’s averments are accepted which were bound to accept as it is established from the record of which we have already take note earlier that the vacancies available for the successful candidates of IPS at 2004 Civil Service Examination insofar as the Andhra Pradesh are concerned are the 29th and 30th point of the running roster of Outsider-Insider-Outsider necessarily, the 29th point is an Insider point and the 30th point is an Outsider point. Admittedly both the petitioner and the 4th respondent are Insiders insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, while the 4th respondent belongs to OBC category, the petitioner belongs to OC category. Then the question is whether the 29th vacancy which is available for an Insider is required to be earmarked for Insider OBC or an Insider OC. The Union of India consistently maintained the stand that there is no reservation in the matter of allocation of candidates to the various cadres, but as a matter of policy the broad principle of allocating candidates belonging to various reserved and unreserved categories in the same proportion in which they are required to be recruited in the All India Services is maintained. Such a policy was in fact considered in Rajiv Yadav’s case (supra 1) at para 6 (extracted hereunder for ready reference) and approved by the Supreme Court while holding that it is not a reservation which is required to be tested on the anvil of Article 16(4), but a policy to achieve an equitable distribution of candidates belonging to various categories either reserved or unreserved all over the country. for appointment “(6) WE may examine the question from another angle. A selected candidate has a right to be INDIAN considered ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home State. Allotment of cadre is an incidence of service. A member of an all-India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India. The principles of allocation as contained in clause (2 of the letter dated 31-5-1985, wherein preference is given to a Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidate for allocation to his home State, do not provide for reservation of appointments or posts and as such the question of testing the said principles on the anvil of Article 16 (4 of the Constitution of India does not arise. It is common knowledge that the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates are normally much below in the merit list and as such are not in a position to compete with the general category candidates. The "roster System" ensures equitable treatment to both the general candidates and the reserved categories. In compliance with the statutory requirement and in terms of Article 16 (4 of the Constitution of India 221/2% reserved category candidates are recruited to the IAS. Having done so both the categories are to be justly distributed amongst the States. But for the "roster System" it would be difficult rather impossible for the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates to be allocated to their home States. The principles thus, ensure equitable of cadre allocation, distribution of reserved candidates amongst all the cadres.” The question is whether such an equitable distribution is made in the current roster that commenced from 1994. We have already seen earlier that the petitioner established that so far 28 candidates have been allotted from the IPS to the cadre of Andhra Pradesh against the 1st 28 points of the current roster and his assertion at para 10 of the affidavit filed in the present writ petition which is identical with the assertion made at para 4(9) of the OA No. 286 of 2006. From the table given in both the above mentioned pleadings, according to the petitioner a total of 12 – OC candidates were allotted against the said 28 points and 9 candidates belonging to BC were allotted. Of the 28 candidates allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh against the 1st 28 points in the current roster, (according to the petitioner) 16 candidates belong to reserved categories either SC, ST or OBC. The respondents do not categorically deny this allegation, but, on the other hand, give a misleading statement at para 28 of the counter filed in the present writ petition and give an impression that 29 points have been filled up in the current roster and of the said 29, 14 have been filled up with OCs, 3 Insider and 11 Outsider and the remaining 15 candidates have been filled up with candidates belonging to various reserved categories and therefore the deviation if any in the matter of allocation of candidates belonging to reserved categories and general category is only marginal. The learned Additional Solicitor General very vehemently argued relying on the earlier judgment dated 3.11.2005 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 8072 of 2004 (G.Srinivas Rao v. Union of India) that a mathematical exactitude is not required in such matters and marginal variations are permissible and such variations would be adjusted over a period of time. We reject the submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General for two reasons. We record the total number of candidates allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh from IPS against the current roster (the 3rd cycle) is only 28 and the 29th 30th points of the current roster that are required to be filled up with the two successful candidates of the 2004 Civil Service Examination. That being the case the distribution of the vacancies between the reserved and unreserved categories is not in conformity with the ratio in which they are required to be allocated and such a deviation in the context of the abovementioned facts is far from being marginal. even according to the respondents, 9 OBCs so far have been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh prior to the allocation in question. The reservation at the time of recruitment in favour of the OBCs admittedly is 27% in the IPS. With the allocation of the 4th respondent, on the ground that the vacancy is earmarked for an Insider OBC would make a total of 10 candidates allocated in the 30 Point roster making the percentage 33 and 1/3rd i.e., a variation of 6% in excess which by any standard cannot be called a marginal variation. To get over this situation, the respondents resorted to all sorts of jerry mandering in the counter affidavit filed before this Court and the Tribunal taking block periods of 2 years, 3 years and 5 years to justify their decision to allot the 4 respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that according to the roster point available it was an Insider OBC roster point. The roster points are not demonstrated to be earmarked in the context of reserved category and unreserved category candidates. The letter dated

30.5.1985 which deals with this aspect at para 3 is as follows : “3 (2) ……… Distribution of reserved vacancies in each cadre between `outsiders and `insiders’ to be done in the ratio of 2:1. This ratio will rationalized by following a cycle `outsider’, `insider’, `outsider’ as is done in the case of general candidates.” How exactly the respondents wish to operate the above extracted portion of the guidelines which they are bound to follow and profess to have scrupulously followed, is not very clear. The roster produced before us dealing with the reserve roster is absolutely silent regarding the points assigned to the various reserved categories from 1983 onwards. It is incomplete and it is maintained only with effect from 2004. The allotment made prior to that is not borne out by the Register nor any other record is placed before us to substantiate the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is arbitrariness in the operation of the roster system and in the equitable distribution of the available vacancies between Insiders and Outsiders insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned apart from the fact that at least in filling up of the last 30 vacancies ending with the allocation by which the 4th respondent came to be allotted to the cadre of Andhra Pradesh there is absolute arbitrariness even while allocating the successful candidates of IPS to A.P. cadre in the context of the candidates belonging to reserved and unreserved categories. This kind of arbitrary exercise if left unchecked on the ground that a candidate selected to the All India Service is bound to serve anywhere in India and has no right to claim that his case should be considered either to his Home State or a State of his choice would only lead to undesirable consequences like nepotism and corruption. It is worthwhile recording here that though it is not stated specifically in the counter affidavit that a Desk Officer who is responsible for a preliminary exercise of allocation of IPS officers to various cadres who has been in that position for a long time has since been transferred after the petitioner commenced this litigation, the respondents very wisely do not disclose the reason, the petitioner obviously cannot prove on record the reasons which prompted such a shift. We are inclined to believe that even the respondents are convinced that there is something rotten in the process, but, however do not wish to acknowledge the same. The respondents seek to cover up all this taking resort to a high principle that a candidate selected to All India Service cannot choose his cadre. We have no quarrel with the generic principle. But, in our view such principles are meant to promote public good and a Constitutional Government, but not to avoid scrutiny of the misdeeds of the administration. In our view, that’s exactly the effort of the respondents herein. In the circumstances, for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is required to be allowed quashing the allotment of the 4 respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the allocationof the petitioner and the 4th respondent in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above effect. --------------------- J.Chelameswar, J ------------------------ P.Swaroop Reddy, J 22nd March, 2007. After the order is pronounced today, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the 1st respondent be directed to complete the exercise, as was directed in the judgment, within a stipulated period. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent be directed to complete the exercise of allocation of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, in accordance with law, pursuant to this order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Registry is directed to make copies of the roster, referred to in this judgment, part of the record of this Court and also to append a copy of the same to this order, while dispatching the order. --------------------- J.Chelameswar, J ------------------------ P.Swaroop Reddy, J Note: Issue copy of this order in two days. (bo) mrk/knk 22nd March, 2007. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (1994) 6 SCC 38 (1996) 10 SCC 562 AIR 1967 SC 1753 1994 SCC (L&SS) 230 AIR 1979 SC 1628 at 1635 para 10