NDLI: C.m. Thri Vikrama Varma Vs. Avinash Mohanty and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules 1954:
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954: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 of India to reconsider a/location of respondent and appellant in accordance with law - Correctness of - Held: Correct - 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 - 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 insider 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 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 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 his willingness for being allocated .to his home State, Andhra 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.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 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 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 to justify their decision by placing the relevant material before the Court - 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 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 - Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-case basis.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 484
Petitioner	C.m. Thri Vikrama Varma
Respondent	Avinash Mohanty And Ors.
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 212
Judgement Date	2011-07-12
Case Number	2550

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

C.m. Thri Vikrama Varma Vs. Avinash Mohanty and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Navneet Rajan Wasan Vs. Union of India & Ors .

G. Srinivas Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors Vs. Sh. Rajiv Yadav, Ias and Ors.

G. S. Glll and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.

Union of India Through Secretary and Anr. Etc. Vs. Rahul Rasgotra and Ors. Etc.

State of Gujarat Vs. Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors.

Arun Ranjan Mukherjee Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Markandey Singh, I.p.s., & Ors. Vs. M.l. Branot, I.p.s., & Ors.

Prabhakar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

C.m. Thri Vikrama Varma Vs. Avinash Mohanty and Ors.

C.m. Thri Vikrama Varma Vs. Avinash Mohanty and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Navneet Rajan Wasan Vs. Union of India & Ors .

G. Srinivas Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors Vs. Sh. Rajiv Yadav, Ias and Ors.

G. S. Glll and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.

Union of India Through Secretary and Anr. Etc. Vs. Rahul Rasgotra and Ors. Etc.

State of Gujarat Vs. Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors.

Arun Ranjan Mukherjee Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Markandey Singh, I.p.s., & Ors. Vs. M.l. Branot, I.p.s., & Ors.

Prabhakar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

C.m. Thri Vikrama Varma Vs. Avinash Mohanty and Ors.