CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1555 OF 1999 --------- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------- JYOTI KALASH, I.A.S. son of Dr. R.N. Srivastav, resident of M.I.G 244 , Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Dist. Patna --------------------Petitioner Versus 1.UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pension, New Delhi 2.The State of Nagaland through the Chief Secretary P.O. Kohima, Nagaland. 3.The State of Orissa through the Chief Secretary, Bhubneshwar (Orissa) (Orissa) 4.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Bihar) …. …. Respondents. ----------- For The Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kanth, Sr. Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, For the State : Mr. S.K. Ghosh A.A.G-II, Sr. Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Shiva Kirti Singh & B.P. Verma, JJ. 1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar. 2. The writ petitioner seeks to challenge - 2 - judgment and order dated 21.8.1998 whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has dismissed O.A. No. 426 of 1995, preferred by the petitioner on merits as well as on the ground of jurisdiction. 3. The relevant facts for deciding the present writ petition lie within a narrow compass. Petitioner got selected and appointed to Indian Administrative Service in the year 1990. While under going training at Masoori he was informed that he has been allocated to Nagaland cadre. According to the petitioner the concerned authorities of Union of India failed to apply the relevant roster system properly otherwise he would have been allocated Orissa cadre. He preferred O.A. No. 159 of 1991 in Gauhati Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal which had jurisdiction because petitioner was allocated to Nagaland cadre. The Gauhati Bench on 12.11.1991 directed the Union of India to transfer the petitioner for joining Orissa cadre and district training. The Orissa Govt. did not allow the petitioner to undergo district training on the ground of there being no vacancy at that time. During the pendency of the said O.A. one I.A.S officer of the Bihar Cadre was transferred to Orissa cadre and on that basis and considering that the State of Bihar had no objection to - 3 - petitioner‟s transfer to Sate of Bihar, O.A. No. 159 of 1991 was allowed on 18.6.1993 with a direction to transfer the petitioner to Bihar cadre. The Union of India preferred Special Leave petition bearing No. 08454 of 1993 in which leave was granted on 6th March 1995 and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench was set aside on a short ground that the appeal had to be allowed in terms of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Yadav and others, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 38. A submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Apex Court that allocation of the petitioner was not in accordance with the roster as required in terms of law laid down in Rajiv Yadav‟s case. After noticing such submission it was observed that petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum to have his grievance vindicated. 4. In view of the aforesaid observation the petitioner chose to prefer O.A. No. 426 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, which has been dismissed by the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition. 5. The moot question which was required to be considered by the Tribunal particularly was the matter which has - 4 - already once gone up to Supreme Court, whether the allocation of the cadre to the petitioner is in accordance with the roster and its operation in terms of law laid don in Rajiv Yadav‟s case. In paragraph 9 and 10 the learned Tribunal carefully noted the silent feature of the roster system as approved in Rajiv Yadav‟s case including the requirement of earmarking in each cadre vacancies for „insider‟ and „outsider‟ in the ratio of 1:2 ; allocation of insider according to their rank and subject to their willingness for their own States ; and the allocation of outsider, regardless of being man or woman or of general or reserved category, according to the roster system after placing insider at their proper places. The tribunal has noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not come within the insider quota and hence he had to be allocated a State as an outsider. Taking note of a chart filed by the petitioner as Annexure-XIII the Tribunal noted that on the working of the roster for outsiders one Sunita Mishra would have been allotted Jammu and Kashmir and thereafter others would have got different States mentioned against their names and the petitioner who was the applicant before the Tribunal would have been allocated Nagaland cadre. 6. Admittedly on account of policy decision by - 5 - the Govt. of India that single lady officers were not to be allocated to the State of Jammu and Kashmir or North Eastern States due to peculiar situation prevailing there, Ms. Sunita Mishra having rank 10 was not allocated Jammu and Kashir cadre but others below her including the petitioner whose rank was 21, were allocated the cadre they would have got under the roster system. Ms Sunita Mishra was ultimately allocated Haryana cadre for the reason that Haryana cadre had the highest gap of 18. 7. The main argument advanced on merits on behalf of the petitioner is that once a policy decision was introduced and Ms Sunita Mishra was not allocated Jammu & Kashmir, she should have been moved down to the next cadre available along with all others being moved down accordingly and then only it could be said that the roster system had worked as per judgment of the Apex Court. If the roster system required that Sunita Mishra should have disturbed the state allocation of all others below her then the petitioner would have been allocated Orissa in place of Nagaland. 8. On the other hand the submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India is that the policy of Union of India not to allocate disturbed State to single lady officers - 6 - could not have been allowed to disturb the working of the roster system in respect of other officers below Ms Sunita Mishra and the course of action adopted by the Union of India is protected by the policy decision and at the same time it does not affect cadre allocation to others which has been done, according to the learned counsel for the Union of India, as per the roster system. 9. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner does not want to challenge the policy decision affecting the single lady officers. He is not aggrieved by the fact that Sunita Mishra was allocated Haryana cadre and, therefore, Ms. Sunita Mishra was never impleaded as a respondent in this litigation. The petitioner, on the ground of Sunita Mishra being denied Jammu and Kashmir cadre, wants that cadre allocation of everyone below Ms. Sunita Mishra be affected so that instead of Nagaland the petitioner may get Orissa cadre. 10. In our considered view once the policy decision of the Union of India is not under challenge, this court has no occasion to consider whether Ms Sunita Mishra should be allocated to Jammu and Kashmir cadre or not, the only relevant - 7 - consideration would be whether there has been any injustice to the petitioner and whether he has suffered any adverse consequences requiring protection of this court. From this point of view, it is found that the learned Tribunal has considered the relevant facts properly and has come to the correct conclusion that proper working of the roster system was bound to result in the petitioner being allocated to Nagaland cadre. 11. We are in agreement of the views of the learned Tribunal. Once cases of single lady officers had to be treated as exceptions, then they required separate consideration by the competent authority, the Union of India which has ample power for the purpose under the cadre Rules. That appears to be course of action adopted by the Union of India. Such course of action in relation to Ms. Mishra did not affect the petitioner adversely or any other person below Ms. Mishra. Hence in our view also the course of action adopted by the respondent authorities was within their power. The occasion for such supplemental action was a natural consequence on account of policy decision which is not under question. On the other hand the course of action suggested on behalf of the petitioner would have affected, adversely or otherwise large number of officers below - 8 - Ms. Sunita Mishra and they could have raised a valid grievance that in their respect the cadre system was not being operated properly. That has been rightly avoided by the Union of India. Thus on merit, we find no good reason to take a different view than that taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence the writ petition has to be dismissed. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary for us in this case to go into details of the issue of jurisdiction which has also been decided by the Tribunal against the petitioner. However, since the parties have advanced submissions on this issue also hence we are indicating our views on this issue but in brief. The only facts which according to the petitioner constitute at least a part of cause of action within the jurisdiction of Patna Bench of the Tribunal are that the petitioner took the Union Public Service Examination from Bihar so as to compete and get recruited to I.A.S . In our view these facts are not relevant and are not integral to the cause of action which has given rise to the present litigation. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed upon the following two judgments of the Supreme Court: (1) (2000) 7 SCC 640 : Navinchandra N. Majithia - 9 - Versus State of Maharashtra and others. (2) (2010) 1 SCC 457, Rajendran Chingaravelu Versus R.K. Mishra Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & others. In both the cases the issue of cause of action had arisen in context of criminal cases and on facts it was found that some of the essential ingredients of the offences had taken place within a particular jurisdiction. On the other hand on behalf of Union of India learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following two judgments: 1. ( 2004)6 SCC, 254 : Kusum Ingots & Alloys LTD Vs. Union of India and anothers 2. (2004) 9 SCC 786 : National Textile Corpn.Ltd. and others Versus Haribox Swalram and others 13. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys the Apex Court referred to and examined a large number of cases for finding out the correct meaning and import of the word “Cause of action”. It is also referred in paragraph 7 to the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd. Versus Haribox Swalram and others (Supra) and concluded in paragraph 18 in the following words: “The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would - 10 - confer jurisdiction on the Court.” 14. As to what kind of facts have nothing to do with the prayer made in the petition, the answer appears to have been given in the best possible manner in paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd Vs. Haribox Swalram and others in the following words: “In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been explained that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court‟s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.” 15. In view of facts as well as the law noticed, we are of the considered view that no part of cause of action in the present case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna. 16. Before parting with the judgment, we must mention that learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Indian Administrative Service cadre Rules 1954 to - 11 - highlight that under Rule 5(2) the Central Govt. has the power, to be exercised with the concurrence of the State Government, to transfer an I.A.S. officer from one cadre to another cadre. He pointed out that since the last 20 years of his career the petitioner has been seeking transfer from Nagaland cadre to any other cadre and still no relief has been granted to him. No doubt under the aforesaid rule the Central Govt. has the necessary power but petitioner‟s prayer for transfer of cadre is a separate matter and hence we would indicate only to the extent that if such a prayer is pending or if such a prayer is made by him, the same should be considered on the basis of relevant facts expeditiously, sympathetically and in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present lis and this judgment and order. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) Patna High Court The 26th July 2010 Rahman/(AFR) - 12 -