News Analysis India

Tag: UPSC Aspirants

  • Successful UPSC aspirants have no right to be allocated cadre of their choice or home state: SC

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said that successful civil services aspirants have no right to be allocated a cadre of their choice or their home state, and also noted that before selection they opt to serve anywhere in the country “with eyes open” but later “scramble” for home cadre.

    The historic judgement in the Mandal case was also cited by the apex court to observe that the candidate belonging to the SC/ST or OBC category, if found suitable by the Union Public Services Commission(UPSC) for selection on merits under general category, “shall be appointed against unreserved vacancies.”

    The observation of the top court came on an appeal of the Central government against a verdict of the Kerala High Court which had asked it to grant home cadre Kerala to A Shainamol, a Muslim woman IAS officer who was posted in Himachal Pradesh.

    A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian set aside the verdict of the High Court asking the Centre to grant Kerala cadre to the woman IAS officer.

    The bench also held that if a candidate hailing from reserved Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), or Other Backward Class (OBC) category does not take benefit of quota and gets selected in the general category then later he or she cannot take recourse to reservation for getting cadre or place of appointment of choice.

    “The allocation of cadre is not a matter of right. It was 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 his home state. As stated above, allotment of cadre is an incidence of service.

    “The applicant as a candidate for the All-India Service with eyes wide open has opted to serve anywhere in the country. Once an applicant gets selected to service, the scramble for the home cadre starts…,” Justice Gupta, writing the 36-page judgement for the bench, said.

    Referring to the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, the bench said the procedure for allocation of cadre is a mechanical process and admits no exception except in terms of the rules.

    “The State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies. Therefore, the Tribunal or the High Court should have refrained from interfering with the allocation of cadre on the argument of the alleged violation of the allocation circular,” the top court said.

    Shainamol secured 20th rank in the UPSC civil services examination in 2006 and she despite belonging to the Muslim OBC category was selected under the general category and was allocated Himachal Pradesh cadre after the Centre sought consent of the Himachal Pradesh government on November 13, 2007.

    She then moved the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) which directed the Centre to allot and accommodate her against “the outsider OBC vacancy in the Maharashtra cadre by virtue of her merit over the candidate already identified and allotted the Maharashtra cadre.”

    Both the Centre and the IAS officer challenged the verdict in the Kerala High Court which allowed the plea of the government challenging the direction of the Tribunal to accommodate the IAS officer in the Maharashtra cadre was allowed.

    However, the high court also allowed the plea of the IAS officer seeking the declaration that she was eligible to be allotted the Kerala cadre.

    The top court allowed the Centre’s appeal saying the applicant though belonging to OBC has not availed any relaxations or concessions admissible to OBC candidates.

    “She was a general merit candidate, thus not entitled to OBC reserved seat in her State. She was allocated to Himachal Pradesh cadre as a general category candidate falling in Rule 7(3) in view of her merit position as a general category candidate.”

    The bench examined the question of whether consultation in respect of allocation of cadre is required to be done with the state from which the candidate belongs or with the state to which the candidate is being allocated.

    “The entire basis of the claim of the applicant is that there was no consultation with the State of Kerala. The said argument is however untenable. The applicant was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh and there was consent duly given by the State of Himachal Pradesh for her allocation to that State. In fact, no consultation was required to be carried out in respect of the applicant with Kerala State,” it held.

  • Can’t give extra chance to UPSC aspirants who appeared in last attempt in 2020: Centre to SC

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Centre told the Supreme Court on Monday that it cannot grant an extra chance to the civil services aspirants who could not appear or prepare well for their last attempt in the UPSC exam in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, reiterating it would amount to extending “differential treatment” to similarly placed candidates.

    However, the top court adjourned the hearing in the matter till Friday after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time to discuss the issue once again.

    At the outset, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheswari was told by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju that the Centre was not agreeable to giving a one-time concession to the candidates who were not able to appear in their last attempt due to the pandemic.

    Raju also furnished a chart to the court giving details of relaxation given by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in civil services exams since its inception and said that in 1979, 1992 and 2015 relaxations were given to the candidates due to change in patterns of examination.

    The bench said then it is not the first time that the exemption would be granted. Raju said that in 1979 and 1992 there was no preliminary examination and something new was introduced and subsequently rules were tweaked.

    The bench said that the one-time relaxation will benefit over 3,300 students without even increasing the age-limit. It told Raju that if the Centre is not acceding to the suggestion then it would like to hear the petitioners.

    Senior advocate Shyam Divan, assisted by advocate Anushree Prashit Kapadia, sought the chart submitted by Raju to the court. Mehta told the bench, which resumed the hearing in the post lunch session, that the Centre would like to discuss the matter once more and sought adjournment of the hearing till Wednesday or Thursday.

    The bench said it is not recording anything but asked the Centre not to notify the rules for 2021 civil service exams till then and posted the matter for further hearing on Friday.

    In its affidavit, the Centre said the contention by the petitioners that their preparation was hampered due to the stress caused by the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic does not hold weight as the UPSC had already given extra time to the candidates by postponing the civil service (preliminary) examination from May 31, 2020 to October 4, 2020.

    “It is further submitted that giving an additional attempt or relaxation in age for some candidates would amount to extending differential treatment for similarly placed candidates at the examination,” it said and added that providing an extra attempt could further have “cascading effect” by creating a ground for challenge by candidates, who have already appeared for the October, 2020 exam.

    It said that non-final attempt candidates, who took the examinations without any murmur or discontent, would disadvantageously be placed in future examination, if the relief is granted to the petitioners as it would enable a vast number of experienced candidates, to participate in the examination again.

    The Centre said it was decided by the minister for state (personnel, public grievance and pension), who the competent authority for approving matters related to IAS/IPS/IFS on January 20, not to provide relaxation in age and number of attempts.

    On January 29, the top court had asked the Centre as to why one-time relaxation cannot be given to civil services aspirants who could not appear or prepare well for their last attempt in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    It had asked Centre to apprise it by February 1 on how many candidate would appear if one-time relaxation is given and how many times it has been done since the UPSC was established.

    On January 25, the Centre had told the apex court that allowing extra attempt in UPSC civil services exam to those who could not appear in their last chance in 2020 due to COVID-19 would create a “cascading effect”, detrimental to the overall functioning and level playing field necessary for a public examination system.

    It had said 4,86,952 candidates appeared in the October 4, last year examination and the UPSC had “left no stone unturned in their pursuit to accommodate for the means and interests of the candidates”. The top court on September 30 last year had refused to postpone the UPSC civil services preliminary exam because of the COVID-19 pandemic and floods in several parts of the country.

    However, it had directed the central government and the UPSC to consider granting an extra chance to candidates who have their last attempt in 2020, with corresponding extension of the upper age-limit.

  • Not in favour of giving extra chance to UPSC aspirants who their missed last attempt: Centre to SC

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Centre Friday told the Supreme Court that it was not in favour of granting one extra opportunity to those civil services aspirants who could not appear in their last attempt in the exams conducted by the UPSC last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar took note of the submissions of Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).

    “We are not ready to give one more chance. Give me the time to file an affidavit…last night I received instruction that we are not agreeable,” Raju told the bench, which also comprised justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murai.

    The bench has now posted the plea of a civil services aspirant Rachna Singh for hearing on January 25 and asked the Centre to file an affidavit during the period and serve it to the parties.

    Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench that the government was considering the issue of granting one more opportunity to those civil services aspirants who could not appear in their last attempt to crack the UPSC exam.

    The top court, on September 30 last year, had refused to postpone the UPSC civil services preliminary exam, which was held on October 4, because of COVID-19 pandemic and floods in several parts of the country.

    However, it had directed the central government and the Union Public Service Commission to consider granting an extra chance to candidates who otherwise have their last attempt in 2020, with corresponding extension of the upper age-limit.

    The bench was then told that a formal decision can be taken by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) only.