A.Shainamol, a selected IAS candidate filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals act, 1985 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal as she was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Tribunal directed The Union to allot and accommodate the applicant against the outsider OBC vacancy in the Maharashtra cadre.
Both the candidate and Union of India challenged the order before the Kerala High Court. The High Court declared that A. Shainamolis eligible to be allotted the Kerala cadre and stated the reason that there was a cadre deficiency.
Centre raises this issue before Supreme Court and the bench of justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the States has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies. The Judgement in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Yadav., 1995 IAS refers allocation of Cadre is not a matter of right, the court said.
As per Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 for allocation of cadre is not required to be done with the State from which the candidate belongs no consultation was required for applicant with Kerala States. The mandate of Rule 5(1) of the Cadre Rules is satisfied when consultation is made with the State to which allocation was made (the consultation was made with the State to which allocation was made i.e. The State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Supreme Court even found that Shainamol had come on general merit even though she was OBC candidate so she should be treated as general category candidate.
The supreme Court also stated that the consistent view of the Court has been that even if the name of the candidate appears in the merit list, such candidate has no right to claim appointment.
Sources : The Indian Express , Live Law