C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMAversusAVINASH MOHANTY AND ORS.

                         [2011] 8 S.C.R. 212
                                                                          ---
A                   C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA
                                   v.
                  AVINASH MOHANTY AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2010)
                            JULY 12, 2011
B
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

        Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954:

C         rr.3, 5 -Allocation of members of the /PS to home State
    cadre - Respondent challenged allocation of appellant, an
    OBC candidate to State cadre on the ground that it was
    arbitrary and in place of appellant, respondent should have
    been allocated to the State cadre - High Court quashing the
    allocation of appellant to State cadre with direction to Union
D   of India to reconsider a/location of respondent and appellant
    in accordance with law - Correctness of - Held: Co"ect -
    Broad principles to be followed for allocation are indicated in
    Para 3 of the fetter dated 31.05.1985 issued by the Secretary,
    Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training - A
E   reading of Para 3 states that vacancies in every cadre are
    required to be earmarked for outsiders and insiders in the ratio
    of 2: 1 - The purpose of the principles of allocation in the letter
    is not only to implement the policy having 2 outsiders and 1
    insider in each cadre, but also to ensure that general and
F   reserved candidates selected and appointed to the All India ·
    Service get a fair and just treatment in the matter of a/location
    to different cadres - This is clear from clause (2) and also
    clause (3) which states that the allocation of insiders, both men
    and women, has to be strictly according to their ranks, subject
G   to their willingness to be allocated to their home States -
    Admittedly, respondent had secured a higher rank than the
    appellant in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 and both
    were insiders - Therefore, respondent was required to be
    considered for allocation to the State cadre if he had given
H                                  212
.-...   C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 213
                          ANO ORS.
        his. willingness for being allocated .to his home State, Andhra . A
        Pradesh, before ·the.· appellant 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, the appellant would have preference
        over respondent.                                                 .B

             Constitution of India, 1950:
                                                               .   .   .

             Articles 14 and 16(1) - Held: 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          C
        equitable treatment in the matter of allocation under.Articles
        14 and ·16(1) of the Constitution.

             Articles 14 and 16(1) - Held: Complexity of a decision
        making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is                o
        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 tojustify their
        decision by placing the relevant material before the Court -
        The constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the rule      E
        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   F
        that are not properly justified - Justification needs each case
        to be decided on case-to-case basis.

             The Civil Services Examination, 2004 was conducted
        by the UPSC in which 'AM' and 'W' amongst others were                 G
        selected for appointment to the Indian Police Service
        (IPS). They were offered appointments to the IPS in 2005.
        'VV' was an OBC candidate. By notification dated
        19.1.2006 of the Government of India, the candidates
        selected and appointed to the IPS on the basis of the                 H
   214       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A results of the Civil Services Examination, 2004 were
                                                                •
  allocated to different State cadres. By this notification,
  'AM' who had secured 45th rank in the Civil Services
  Examination, 2004 was allocated to the Chhattisgarh
  cadre whereas 'VV' who had secured 201st·rank was
B allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre.
       'AM' made representations to the authorities against
  his allotment to the Chhattisgarh cadre and claimed
  allocation to the Andhra Pradesh cadre. When he did not
  receive any response, he filed O.A. before CAT on the
C ground that the authorities ought to have followed the
  guidelines and norms in the letter dated 31.5.1985 while
  making the allocations and the allocation of 'W' to the
  Andhra Pradesh cadre was arbitrary and in his place he
  should have been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre.
D The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved, 'AM' filed writ
  petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed
  the writ petition and quashed the allocation of 'W' to the
  Andhra Pradesh cadre and directed t11e Union of India to
  reconsider the· allocation of 'AM' and 'W'. The instant
E appeals were filed by 'W' and the Union of India.

         Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. In view of Rule 3 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules,
  1954, each State and a group of States will have a State
F cadre or Joint cadre respectively of the IPS. Rule 5
  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. [Para 6] [224-F-G]
G
       Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav, /AS and Others (1994) 6
  SCC 38: 1994(2) Suppl. SCR 30; Union of India v.
  Mhathung Kithan and Others, etc. (1996) 10 SCC 562: 1996
  (6) Suppl. SCR 486; Srinivas Rao v. Union of India & Ors.
H 2005 (2) ALT 728: 2005 (2) SCR 83 - referred to.
--   C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 215
                       AND ORS.
          2.1. The broad principles to be followed for allocation    A
     are indicated in Para 3 of the letter dated 31.05.1985. A
     reading of clause (1) of Para 3 stated 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    B
     is maintained, over a period of time, if not during every
     allocation, the breakup of vacancies in a cadre between
     outsiders and insiders will have to be calculated
     following this cycle of 'outsider', 'insider', 'outsider'.
     Clause (2) provided that the vacancies for Scheduled            c
     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
                                                                     0
     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. [Paras 7, 8] [224-H; 227-F-H; 228-A-B]
                                                                     E
          2.2. The purpose 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               F
     appointed to the All India Service get a fair and just
     treatment in the matter of allocation to different cadres.
     This is clear from clause (2) and also clause (3) which
     states that the allocation of insiders, both men and
     women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject       G
     to their willingness to be allocated to their home States.
     This is also 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
     were laid down in the letter dated 31.05.1985 because           H
    216     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                •
A 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 the equality
  principles in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. A
B 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. [Para 10) [229-0-H; 230-A]
c        3. The High Court 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. After considering
D   this table, the High Court held that even according to the
    Union of India, as against a total of 29 vacancies 9 OBC
    candidates (4 insiders+ 5 outsiders) were allocated to the
    Andhra Pradesh cadre from amongst the successful
    candidates of Civil Services Examinations from 1994-2003
E   and if 'W', 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
F   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. The Union of India, in para 32 of its
    counter affidavit before the Tribunal has, however, stated
    that from the five Civil Services Examinations (1999-2003)
G   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,
    therefore, there was neither any excess nor any shortfall
    of allocation of OBC candidates in the Andhra Pradesh
H   IPS cadre. Such calculation of percentages on reserved
C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 217
                  AND ORS.
category candidates allotted to the Andhra Pradesh cadre     A
worked out on the basis of number of candidates allotted
to the Andhra Pradesh cadre from the five Civil Services
Examinations, from 1999-2003 is not sensible, when in the
very same counter affidavit of the Union of India filed
before the Tribunal, it is clearly stated that a 30 point    B
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 appeared that only with a view to somehow     c
justify the allocation of 'VV', an OBC candidate to the
Andhra Pradesh cadre from the Civil Services
Examination, 2004, the Union of India took the figures of
allocation of candidates selected for the IPS in the five
Civil Services Examinations of 1999-2003 instead of          0
taking the figures of appointments to the vacancies in the
30 point roster starting from the 1994 Civil Services
Examination till 2003 Civil Services Examinations. [Paras
11,12] [230-8-C; 231-A-H; 232~A]
    4. Admittedly, 'AM' had secured a higher rank than       E
'W' in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 and both 'AM'
and 'W' 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   F
States. Hence, 'AM' 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 'W' could be considered for
such allocation. If, however, the vacancy for which          G .
consideration was being made was a vacancy for an
insider OBC candidate in the 30 point roster, 'W' would
have preference over 'AM'. 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       H
    218     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 8 S.C.R.
                                                                 •
A Examinations 1999-2003 were 9 and had exceeded the
  27% reservation for CBC candidates and hence there·
  could not be an insider CBC vacancy in which 'W' could
  have been allocated. The High Court was, therefore, right
  in coming to the conclusion that allocation of 'W' to the
s Andhra Pradesh cadre was in violation of the guidelines
  contained in the letter dated 31.05.1985 and was clearly
  arbitrary and not equitable. [Para 13] [232-B-F]

       5. Complexity of a decision making process cannot
  be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court
C 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.
  The constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the
D 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
E 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. [Para 14) [232-G-H; 233-A-C]

F      6. The impugned order of the High Court quashing
  the allocations of 'VV' and 'AM' and directing
  reconsideration of their allocation will not have cascading
  effects on the service because the High Court has only
  quashed the allocation of only two members of the IPS,
G namely, 'AM' and 'W' and not of other members of the
  IPS and directed reconsideration of their allocation. [Para
  14) [233-D-E]
         M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212: 2006
    (7) Suppl. SCR 336 - relied on.
--
     C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 219
                       AND ORS.
                         Case Law Reference:                        A
         1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 30       referred to   Para 3,5,9
         1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 486 referred to        Para 3, 9
         2005 (2) SCR 83              referred to   Para 3
                                                                    B
         2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 relied on          Para 14

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     2550 of 2010.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 22.3.2007 of the           C
     Division ·Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
     Hyderabad in W.P. No. 458 of 2007.

                                WITH
                                                                    D
     Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2010.

          Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Ranjit Kumar, Brijender Chahar,
     T.S. Doabia, I. Venkatanarayana, Neeraj Kumar Jain, R. Ayyam
     Perumal, K. Seshachary, Shomana Khanna, G. Ramakrishna
     Prasad, Mohd. Wasay Khan, Bharat J. Joshi, H. Rajgopal,        E
     Pranab Kumar Mullick, Soma Mullick, Rekha Pandey, Rohitash
     S. Nagar, S.N. Terdal, Sushma, Suri, V. Pattabhiram, G.N.
     Reddy, Manish Mohan, Bhaskar Poluri, Pratham Kant, Kaustubh
     N. Sinha, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.
     Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh for the appearing parties.                F

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         A. K. PATNAIK, J. i. 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 · G
     Pradesh High Court dated 22.03.2007 in Writ Petition No. 458
     of 2007.                      ·

        2. The facts very briefly are that in the Civil Services
     Examination, 2004 conducted by the Union Public Service        H
    220       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011] 8 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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,
C 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
0
   results, Avinash Mohanty filed O.A. No. 286 of 2006 before the.
   Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad 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
E 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
F 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,
G 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,
H
--   C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 221
               AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

   the appellant in C.A. No. 2550 of 2010, submitted that this Court         A
   in Union of India vs. Rajiv Yadav, /AS and Others [(1994) 6
   sec 38] while considering the allocation of officers appointed
   to the Indian Adm'inistrative 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                   B.
   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               c
   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.                   D
   Srinivas Rao vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005 (2) ALT 728
 · (D.S.) 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 possible        E
   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            F
   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           G
   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)
                                                                             H
     222       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A 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
B the 27% reservation in favour of OBC candidates. He submitted
  that this Court has held in the case of Rajiv Yadav (sup.ra) 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
c 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
D    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
E    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
F    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
G    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 app·ointment to IPS on the basis
     of the Civil Services Examination 2004, a total of 8 candidates
rl   were allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre from the last five
--    C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 223
                AND·ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
     Civil Services Examinations (1999-2003), out of which 2 (27%)         A
     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           B
     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 OBC vacancy
     was meant for an insider OBC candidate and thus the same
     has been filled up by allocating Vikrama Varma, an OBC                c
     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
                                                                           0
     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      E
     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         F
     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 vacancies had been
     assigned to insider OBCs and five vacancies had been
     assigned to outsider OBCs and thus nine OBC candidates had            G
     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 1Oth vacancy
     in the Andhra Pradesh cadre in the 30 point roster, if allocated      H
    224       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                         -
                                                                         ._


I\ 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
B 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
C 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.

D         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
E         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
F         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
G         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
H 31.05.1985 and are extracted herein below:
-
.....
        C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 225
                  AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
           "(1) The vacancies in every cadre will be earmarked for          A
           '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 calculated            B
           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,      C
           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',       D
           '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                              E

          (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         F
          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            G
          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               H
      226        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                             --
 A                        and Gujarat

             Group II :   Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &
                          Kashmir Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya
                          Pradesh
 B
             Group Ill:   Maharashtra, Manipur-Tripura, Nagaland,
                          Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Sikkim

             Group IV : Tamil Nadu, Union Territories, Uttar Pradesh
                        and West Bengal.
 c
            (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
 D          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
· E         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
 F
            (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,
 G          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 Ill States and the
            fourth cycle with Group IV States and the first cycle again
            with Group I States. Occasionally it may happen that a
 H
--   C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 227
               AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
         candidate's turn may come in such a way that he may get            A
         allocated to his own home State. When that 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
                                                                            8
          the previous year at the bottom, i.e., the arrangement will
          begin with Group II on top. In the third year, Group Ill 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          C
         merit list is such that they could have been appointed to
         the service even in the absence of any resetvation, 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         D
         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   E
         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                F
     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 cadre between
     outsiders and insiders will have to be calculated following this       G
     cycle of 'outsider', 'insider', 'outsider'. Clause (2) of the broad
     principles of allocation in the '1etter 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             H
        228      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                             -
                                                                             ._

    A 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
                                                        a
      this ratio is to be operationalised by following cycle outsider,
    B 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
    c   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 Manipur-Tripura cadre before the
        Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, raising various
        contentions and the Tribunal held that the power conferred by
    D   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 ofthe IAS to different cadres. The Tribunal further held
    E   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
    F   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
    G   Court explained that in compliance with the statutory
        requirements and in terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution,
        22% % reserved category ca'ndidates are 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
t   H
 C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 229
           AND ORS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]

State cadres, he has no right to claim allocation to a State of      A
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         B
service to various cadres. This positic:m 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 cari be exe_rcised    C
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 e'quitable treatment to both the general          0
candidates and the reserved candidates.

      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
                                                                     E
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             F
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     G
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     H
        230       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                              --
    A cadres or Joint cadres, the Central Government has also to
      discharge its constitutional obligations contained in 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
    B a right to a fair and equitable treatment in the matter of
      allocation under Article~ 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
    C 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 :

    D   S.No. CSE Total Vacancies          Insider             Outsider

                                     GEN OBC SC/ST· GEN OBC SC/ST

        1.      1994       7           -      1      1    3       1       1

    E   2.      1995       5           1      1      -     1      1       1
•       3.      1996       6           2      -      -     1      2       1
        4.      1997       2           -      -      -    2 -             -
    F
        5.      1998       1           -      1      -    - -             -
        6.      1999       1           -      -      -     1      -       -
        7.      2000       1           -      -      -     1      -       -
        8.      2001       1           -      -      1     - -            -
    G
        9.      2002       1           -      -      -     -              1
        10.     2003       4           -      1      -     2      -       1
        Total              29          3      4      2     11     5       4
    H
-   C.M. THRI VIKRAMAVARMAv. AVINASH MOHANTY 231
              AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

    After considering this table, the High Court has held in the     A '
    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 ifVikrama Varma,        B
    an insider OBC candidate, was to be allocated to the Andhra
    Pradesh cadre from the selected candidates of the Civil
    Services Examina'tion, 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,       c
    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- D
    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, therefore,
    there was neither any excess nor any shortfall of allocation of
    OBC candidates in the Andhra Pradesh IPS cadre. We fail to E
    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 . F
    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 G
    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 H
    232 ·    SUPREME COURT-REPORTS                (2011) 8 S.C.R.
                                                                         --
A   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
    Examination till 2003 Civil Services Examinations.

         13. Admittedly, Avinash Mohanty had secured a higher
8
    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
C 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
D 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 fi,1ding that the number of
    vacancies in the 30 point roster filled up by OBC candidates
E 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
    Varma could have been allocated. The High Court was,
    therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that allocation of
F · 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
G Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been I
  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

H
-.....   C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA v. AVINASH MOHANTY 233
                   AND ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
         Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of             A
         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             B
             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.              C
             Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-
             case basis."

              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              D
         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.                                    E

              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.

         D.G.                                         Appeals dismissed.         F