Verma, J. - (1.) Rahul Rasgotra, respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.5414 of 1992 was selected for the Indian Police Service in the combined Civil Services Examination held in the year 1988, while Desh Raj Singh, respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 1993 was selected for the Indian Police Service in the combined Civil Service Examination held in the year 1989. Rahul Rasgotra was, therefore, a probationer in the I.P.S. belonging to the 1989 batch, while Desh Raj Singh was an I.P.S. probationer of the 1990 batch. Rahul Rasgotra was granted exemption from joining training with other probationers of the 1989 batch of I.P.S. since he wanted to appear in the next examination held in the year 1989 in an attempt to improve his prospects by getting selected for a better Service. However, he did not succeed and he joined the training in August 1990 as an exempted probationer of the 1989 batch along with probationers of the 1990 batch. Desh Raj Singh had also sought permission to appear in the next examination but he later withdrew his request and joined the training along with the probationers of the 1990 batch. Rahul Rasgotra was ranked 168 in the 1989 batch and according to his rank the cadre allocation made to him on 28-12-1989 was in the joint cadre of the State of Manipur and Tripura. There is no dispute that according to his rank in the 1989 batch, the cadre allocated to him is appropriate. The claim of Rahul Rasgotra is that the cadre allocation to him should be made treating him as a probationer along with the 1990 batch and not 1989 batch since as an exempted probationer of the 1989 batch he had joined the training along with probationers of the 1990 batch; and on this basis, he would get allocation to the cadre of a State better than Manipur and Tripura. However, he does not indicate the manner in which he can be mixed with probationers of the 1990 batch or be given a rank with them. Desh Raj Singh was allotted the Orissa Cadre as a probationer of the 1990 batch, but he claimed allotment to his home State of Uttar Pradesh. He too is aggrieved by the allotment of Orissa Cadre to him. Both of them filed application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging cadre allotment. Their claim has been allowed by the Tribunal. Hence these appeals by special leave are filed by the Union of India.
(2.) We may now refer to some relevant provisions. The Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 provide for constitution of cadres, allocation of members to various cadres and certain ancillary matters. Rule 2(a) defines 'cadre officer' to mean a member of the Indian Police Service. Rule 3 provides that there shall be constituted for each State or group of States an Indian Police Service Cadre. Rule 4 deals with the strength and composition of each of the cadre constituted under Rule 3. Rule 5 which is material reads as under:- "5. Allocation of members to various cadres - 5(1) The allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or State Government concerned. 5(2) The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned, transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre". Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, in terms, requires the Central Government to make allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres in consultation with the State Government or State Governments concerned. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides for transfer of a cadre officer from one cadre to another by the Central Government with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned.
(3.) The main argument in these appeals by Shri P. P. Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the cadre allocation can be made by the Central Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 only of a 'cadre officer' as defined in Rule 2(a) which means a member of the Indian Police Service; and, therefore, it can be made of an officer only when he has become a member of the Indian Police Service by appointment to the Service which happens when the concerned officer joins the training on his appointment and not earlier. The argument is that on selection as a result of the competitive examination and allotment of a p icular service to the successful candidate, he does not become a member of the service which happens only when he is appointed to the service by joining the training. On this basis, it was contended, that Rahul Rasgotra having joined the training in August 1990, the cadre allocation made in his case in December 1989 after being exempted from joining the training along with other officers of the 1989 batch, was made when he was not a 'cadre officer' which he became only in August 1990 on joining the training with officers of the 1990 batch. It was submitted, that the cadre allocation of Rahul Rasgotra in December 1989 being made prior to his joining the training in August 1990, the power under Rule 5(1) was then not available and a fresh cadre allocation has to be made in his case on the basis of facts existing in August 1990 along with the officers of the 1990 batch who had joined the training at the same time. The submission is, that on this basis he expects allocation to a better cadre to which he is entitled on consideration for cadre allocation along with officers of the 1990 batch.;