LN THE HG}? CQURT OF EmiA’I‘I EGAI-IH AT BELA$PUR (CGe },/7 Mm y‘etmmx Noe ”iv” /2000 31ne$h Kuamr Upaéhyaym ageti $30M ; $6 years. mm oi law Shm Kwamath Upaahyaya, Biv‘i 5'1 onal Foream O£fieer (’IJ‘esa) Mahmaadfx Frwumion “11W 5i can Raiyqr s nismm aaipm- “my” 1' VM'm g The Union af India, Through tkw Siecwea‘fary, Mini. awry of @Vviromnen‘e; and Farest; Paryavaran Bhawang GsGgOG ‘3omplex Lodhi Imam Ema Dekhh ’rhe mate w Graham sgarhg' Through the $acretax‘y, Governmsn t af Cmwki egarh ? Eeparltment of Foresh DsKgBhawam Raipur (6G}'e The Swws mi Tripux‘as Through tm $earet-aryg iipgmmtmen$ am 3erv1ees uaptie Agartaia (wripuraje %%* 227 ’iiRET ¥ETIT10§I Uw‘ER ARmGLE 226/0F THE (EQNSTITUTEON QE‘ mimg g iiarEicmkarg of: tha pea tionm‘ .As given in the caaae tiwlea k’articulara (3f the respomiemca n? Ass givem in the wuse w meg e ”an N, DJ\\9)l‘\ ) I igg€ -zu government of India has declined to accept the same“ It is a matter of policy of the Government of India.£§ :is £0rrthe GOVermnent of India t0 ccnsider whether his cadre should. be changed from Triyura to Madhya "Pradesh or note He may make a £urther repregentation to tho Government of India” We are not inclined to interfere in the petitiono The writ peti: tion is dismissed accordinglyc" 2° Petitioner thereafter submittec’i a represegita'tionn The said xeoresentation was decided and the communication was given‘ to the piitioner on 17°8°2000‘(Annexure P-13 ). Petitioner thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O,A. 876/2000. Learned Member of the Tribunal a£ter quoting the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of MOP. and considered the material available on record. held that since the matter is within the policy of the government, rejected petition by passing impugned order annexure Pull, 5‘ 3. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted that- the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and contrary to law. On the other hand learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and can not be interfered with in the petitiona Counsel for the Union of India has placed relianc on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the matter of gnion of India and others Vs, Raiiv Yadav Qd others$ 1994 (6) ECG 38., where Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under g e “ We may examine the question from another angle. A selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the 1&5; but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or to his home Stateo Allotment \\ of’cadre is an incidence of service. A member \e of an All India Service bears liability to serve \ i e =3g g4. g arm part 31E Endiaa The nrinci'olés 3£ allocation as contajnrw 1n c1 use: {2} o£the latter 6m, 3105 95 whereln prea enca is wiven to a qChadLleé mste/ ribe candidate for Llloc&i.i0n to his home Q’mtey do n'v- *o’ovirh: £0): reservation of ap wtments ar mntg and 1s Quch the mumtlcm of tLstLna tho fab; brvwioles on the anvil of 1r l 16 (4) o: the ”ons1t1tut1on f ho a not ariseo“ #“4 a? 4o t is-‘£urther submitteé! that the oet'ltloner 11:5 alroady comolatmi tha flve ye V‘s deputation period. whidn has; 5. Having considéred the facts and circumgtances of the case and in View of the order pgsed bythe High Court of M¢P° dismissing the petition on the ground that the matter comes within the perview ofthe government and also in View of the decision of the supreme Court in the matter ofJE Union of Inéia and others (supra ) we are o£ the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and as such the petition fails and is accordingly dismisse. rm: d lsagxédaga ma 1eM 7, ‘ r // . sdl— . . Fakhrudd‘n Judge / Sdl- Chif Justice I d e