Delhi HC destroys Center's 2018 IAS, IPS cadre allocation

NEW DELHI: The Center ' S Cadre Assignments Of And 2018 Batch Officers Have Deleted Under The New Policy Rules And Ordered A New Cadre Assignment.

A Bank Of Justices Vipin Sanghi And Rekha Palli Accepted The Submission Of The Officers, Who Had Approached The Court Disputing The Trial, That Awarding Gifts Is A Matter That Would Affect Their Career For All Upcoming Times.

It Noted That The Reallocation Of Frameworks By The Authorities Would Not Take Much Time Since It Is Done Electronically, That Is To Say By Computer Programs Or Software, And The Authorities Already Have The Required Data In This View.

For All Of The Above Reasons, We Are Inclined To Allow These Writing Requests And To Destroy The Cadre Assignments Made By The Respondents Of The IAS Video Communication Officers Of December 3, 2018, And The IPS Officers Of OM, December 19, 2018. We Point Accordingly, The Bank Said.

It Said The Court Was Inclined To Suspend Petitioners Because They Approached The Court At The Earliest And At A Stage Where Neither The IAS Officials Nor The IPS Officials Of The 2018 Party Started Their Training On The Spot Who Are Cadres. . Specific.

We Therefore Send Respondents A New Cadre Allocation Of The Successful Candidates Assigned To The IAS And IPS, Depending On Their Merits And Taking Into Account The Preferences Of The Candidates, Regardless Of Whether They #  99 ' In One Of The Zones Or Frameworks.

If A Candidate Is Unable To Get One Of The Preferred Frameworks According To His Rank, The Cadre Assignment Regarding Such A Candidate Can Be Used In The Way That Is Set Out In .... That Is To Say, He Mag ' Are Assigned Together With Other Such Candidates In Order Of Rank To One Of The Remaining Frameworks, Arranged In Alphabetical Order, In Which There Are Vacancies In Its Category As Allocation Of Candidates That Can Be Assigned To Frameworks In Accordance With Their Preference ' The Bank Said And Removed Four Petitions.

For No Preference In Zones And Frames The Candidates Had To Enter" 99" .

The Court's Judgment Came On Four Petitions Submitted By Different Officers Against Central Government Notification Assigning The Frameworks To Candidates (IPS) Based On The Results Of The Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2017.

They Sought Direction To The Center To Issue A New List Allocating Respective Frameworks To Selected IPS Candidates In CSE, 2017, Purely Based On Merit And Preferences Indicated In The Online Form, By The Office Memorandum ( OM) From 5 September 2017.

According To The Pleas In Law, The Interpretation Of The 2017 Cadre Allocation Policy, As Determined By The Authorities, Was Unreasonable And Grossly Unfair, Unjust And Random.

The Same Is At Odds With The Principle Of Equality, Since The More Deserving Candidates, Ranked Higher In CSE, 2017, Have Refused Allocation To Frameworks For Which They Had Given Their Preferences, And Fewer Creditable Candidates Have Assigned To The Named Frameworks, Officers ' Counsel Had Argued.

From The 2017 Office Memorandum On The Cadre Allocation Policy, The States And Joint Frameworks Were Divided Into Five Zones.

According To That Policy, Candidates First Had To Make Their Choice In The Descending Order Of Preference From The Different Zones. Thereafter, Candidates Will Indicate One Preference For Cadre From Each Preferred Zone.

The Candidates Will Next Indicate Their Second Framework Preference For Each Preferred Zone. A Similar Process Will Continue Until A Preference For All Frameworks Is Indicated By The Candidate.

If A Candidate Does Not Give Preference To One Of The Zones/boxes, It Is Assumed That He Has No Specific Preference For Those Zones/boxes And, Consequently, If He Is Not Assigned To One Of The Boxes For Which He Has Indicated The Preference, He Will Be Assigned Along With Other Such Candidates In The Order Of Rank To One Of The Remaining Frameworks, Arranged In Alphabetical Order, In Which There Are Vacancies In Its Category After Allocation Of Candidates That Can Be Assigned To Frameworks Consistent With Their Preference, It Had Explained .

The Submitters ' The Complaint Was That The Authorities Did Not Assign The Frameworks To Them According To Their Declared Policy Of Merit Cum Preferences.

The Court Agreed With The Officials That The Interpretation And Implementation Of The Cadre Allocation Policy, 2017, Applied By The Respondents Is Unreasonable And Arbitrary, Because The More Deserving Candidates Were Assigned The Frameworks To Which They Would Otherwise Be Assigned According To Their Preferences And The Same. The Less Deserving Candidates.

There Is No Profit To Report That The Common Thread In The 2017 Cadre Allocation Policy Is Rewarding Merit. The More Deserving Candidates Are Entitled To Compensation Allowances Before The Less Deserving Candidates Are Considered.

This Is Clear From The General Arrangement/Policy ... That Principle Is Clearly Violated By Respondents As A Consequence Of The Way They Interpreted And Implemented The September 5, 2017 OM. It Said.

comments