Sujata V. Manohar, J.
1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
Civil Appeal No. 12310 of 1996 (@SLP (C) No. 13705 of 1995)
2. Respondent No. 1 appeared in the Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1985. He was selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1986 batch. The home State of respondent No. 1 is Nagaland and he gave his preference for allocation to his home State cadre. There were two seats which were available for allocation to Nagaland. Both these seats were earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point roster. Hence the first respondent was allocated to the State of Haryana. He challenged this allocation by filing an application before the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the application and directed the appellant-Union of India to consider the transfer of respondent No. 1 from the Haryana cadre to the Nagaland cadre in the manner set out in the order. The present appeal is from the order of the Tribunal.
3. Under Rule 5 of the Cadre Rules, it is provided as follows :
``5. Allocation of members to various cadres - (1). The allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned.
(2) - The Central government may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned, transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre.''
4. Rule 5 was construed by this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS and others, 1994(6) SCC 38. It has held that a selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home STATWE Alotment of cadre is an incidence of service; and a member of an All-India service bears liability to serve in any part of India. Respondent No. 1, therefore, had no right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice.
5. Under a policy decision conveyed by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training to the Chief Secretaries of all States by a letter dated 30th July, 1984, it was decided that for various reasons set out therein, in order to have a proper balance in the State cadre, the ``outsider'' element in the direct recruitment quota was raised to 66.2/3% or in the ratio 2:1 as between outsiders and insiders in place of 1:1. The letter states :
``It is proposed to give effect to this decision by ensuring henceforth at the time of allocating candidates appointed to IAS and IPS on the basis of Civil Service Examination, that at least 66.2/3% of the officers are from outside the State concerned.''
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, outsider, insider, outsider...''. In any given year the roster starts with the point where the roster ended in the previous year. In the case of the State cadre for the State of Nagaland there were two vacancies for allocation to the batch which had passed the examination in the year 1985. As per the 30 point roster, both these vacancies were for outsiders. Hence the first respondent, who belonged to the State of Nagaland, being an ``insider'', was not eligible for either of the two vacancies. He was, therefore, allotted to the State of Haryana.
7. The first respondent has contended that in the batch passing the examination in 1984, when the vacancy was for an insider, no insider was available and the vacancy had been occupied by an outsider. Hence he should be considered for one of the roster points available for the batch of 1985. We have, however, not been shown any rule which provides for a carry-over of ``insider'' vacancies if they are not filled due to non-availability of insider candidates. In the absence of any such rule for carry-forward of insider vacancies, we do not see how the first respondent can be accommodated in the vacancies which are earmarked for outsiders as per the relevant roster points.
8. In the policy statement of 30th July, 1984, a reference was made to the fact that State service officers who get promoted to IAS/IPS are in the age group of 40 to 50 and at that late stage, their transfer to another State cadre may give rise to personnel and administrative problems of adjustment. Therefore, in order to restore the outsider-insider balance in a State cadre, it was proposed that the outsider element in the direct recruitment quota required to be increased. In this context it is difficult to accept the contention of the first respondent regarding carry-forwad of ``insider'' vacancies. The roster is framed bearing in mind this requirement of increasing outsiders in the quota of Direct Recruits. The policy requires that at least 66.2/3% of the officers who are directly recruited are from outside the State concerned. It does not impose a ceiling of 66.2/3%. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in disturbing the implementation of this policy as per the roster.
9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the application of the first respondent is dismissed.
10. In view of the above decision, Civil Appeal 12325/96 (@ SLP (C) No. 21429/93) is also allowed with costs since the facts are similar to the facts in the above Civil Appeal.
11. Appeals allowed.