The observation of the highest court came on the central government’s appeal against a verdict of the High Court of Kerala which had asked it to grant the framework of Kerala to A Shainamol, a Muslim woman officer of the IAS who was stationed in Himachal Pradesh.
A successful candidate for public service is not entitled to be assigned any framework or place of appointment of their choice as a candidate for the All India service whom they choose to serve anywhere in the country with “eyes wide open,” the Supreme Court said on Friday. The landmark judgment in the Mandal case was also invoked by the Supreme Court to observe that the candidate belonging to the SC / ST or the OBC, if deemed fit by the UPSC to be selected on the merits in the general category, “will be appointed to vacant posts without reservation”.
A bench composed of Judges Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian overturned the High Court’s verdict asking the Center to grant a Kerala cadre to the female IAS officer.
The bench also considered that if a candidate, originating from Listed Castes (SC), Listed Tribes (ST) or another reserved backward class (OBC), the category does not benefit from the quota and is selected from the general category. , then later, he or she cannot resort to the reservation to obtain an executive or place of appointment of his or her choice.
“The award of the executive is not a question of law. It has been held that a selected candidate has the right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he does not have this right to be assigned to an executive of their choice or home State As noted above, executive assignment is a service incidence.
“The candidate as a candidate to serve all of India with eyes wide open has chosen to serve anywhere in the country. Once a candidate is selected to serve, the rush for the original cadre begins… “Judge Gupta, writing the 36-page Judgment for the bench, said.
Referring to the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) rules, the judiciary stated that the process of awarding cadres is a mechanical process and does not allow any exceptions except in terms of rules.
“The state does not have the discretion to award a cadre as it sees fit. Therefore, the Tribunal or High Court should have refrained from interfering with the award of the cadres on the violation argument. alleged of the allocation circular, “he added. said the court.
Shainamol was ranked 20th in the UPSC Civil Service Examination in 2006 and, despite belonging to the Muslim OBC category, was selected in the General category and was awarded to the Himachal Pradesh cadre after that the Center requested the agreement of the government of Himachal Pradesh on November 13, 2007.
She then moved the Ernakulam bench from the Central Administrative Court which ordered the Center to award and host it against “the vacant OBC external post under Maharashtra because of its merit over the already identified candidate. and attributed to the cadre of Maharashtra “.
The Center and the IAS officer both challenged the verdict in the Kerala High Court, which allowed government plea challenging the Tribunal’s directive to host the IAS officer in Maharashtra. .
However, the High Court also allowed the plea of the IAS officer requesting the declaration that she was eligible to be awarded the Kerala cadre.
The highest court upheld the Centre’s appeal stating that “The applicant, although belonging to the OBC, did not benefit from any relaxation or concession eligible for the applicants of the OBC. She was a candidate on general merit and therefore was not entitled to the CBO reserved seat in her State. part of Pradesh as a general category candidate under rule 7 (3) in view of its deserving position as a general category candidate. “
The bench examined the question of whether the consultation concerning the allocation of cadres should be carried out with the state to which the candidate belongs or with the state to which the candidate is assigned.
“The whole basis of the Applicant’s claim is that there was no consultation with the State of Kerala. This argument is, however, untenable. The Applicant has been assigned to the State of Himachal Pradesh. and there was the consent duly given by the State of Himachal Pradesh for her assignment to that State. In fact, no consultation should have taken place in respect of the Applicant with the State of Kerala ” , did he declare.