Anu Kumari vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant appeared in the preliminary examination of All India Services held in June, 2017, and on being successful therein, she appeared in the main examination held on 20.10.2017. Through a Press Note dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure A-III), an addendum to the Detailed Application Form (DAF), was released indicating the procedure for exercising option for cadre allocation. It was mentioned that the website will be open between 16.01.2018 and 29.01.2018 till 6:00pm, and within that time, the candidates can exercise their option in accordance with the cadre allocation policy published for that particular year. The facility to exercise option was made available on the website of the UPSC.

The applicant contends that on the basis of the marks secured by her, she was put at rank No.2, and accordingly, she prepared the draft option as per the cadre allocation policy for the current year. She states that though she was ready with the options in all respects, she could not upload and transmit the same to the UPSC till 6:00pm on 29.01.2018 due to certain reasons, and she was successful in doing so only 20 minutes later. It is also stated that immediately thereafter she sent an email to the Commission informing the factum of her uploading the option at 6:20pm on 29.01.2018.

On receipt of the email, the UPSC sent a communication to the applicant on 13.02.2018. It was mentioned that in the detailed application form itself, it was clearly mentioned that the option as to cadre allocation must be uploaded on the Commission's website between 16.01.2018 and 29.01.2018 up to 6:00pm, and if any candidate fails to exercise the option by that time, it would be presumed that the candidate did not exercise the option and the allocation would be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Further correspondence in this behalf ensued. Similar answer was given on 21.02.2018. These communications are challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that the cadre is to be allocated on the basis of her rank, and once the option was exercised and forwarded to UPSC, although, with a few minutes delay, the right that has accrued to her on the basis of her rank, cannot be defeated.

On behalf of the UPSC and Department of Personnel & Training, separate counter affidavits are filed. It is stated that though 13 full days were made available for exercising option, the applicant did not exercise the same, and even the so called option said to have been forwarded at 6:20pm on 29.01.2018 did not reach the Commission's Website. It is further stated that the cadre allocation policy is clear, and if a candidate fails to exercise the option in the prescribed manner, Clause 4 of the policy indicates the method in which allocation of such candidate is to be made.

Shri Vaibhav Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the lapse on the part of the applicant to exercise option within the stipulated time is very minor, and that should not cost her, the rights that have accrued to her on the basis of her rank. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Patna High Court in Nishant Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1779 of 2017 decided on 09.02.2017.

Shri R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the cadre allocation is one of the most important steps for appointment in the All India Service, and if the applicant has not chosen to exercise option for such a long time, she has to blame herself, and the department cannot be made accountable for that.

Obviously, on account of dint of hard work, the applicant has emerged as one of the most successful candidates in the All India Services Examination for the concerned year. The very objective of the individuals appearing for the All India Services Examination is to choose a cadre of his or her choice, and to render service, to the best of their satisfaction. They are required to be more and more attentive when it comes to the question of securing the ultimate benefit in the form of cadre allocation. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cadre allocation policy keeps on changing. One can understand if the change of policy was a complicated one and hardly any time was given to a candidate to analyse it, and then to exercise the option.

Well in advance, i.e., on 10.01.2018, the successful candidates in the main examination were informed that addendum to the DAF of choosing the cadre allocation would be made available on the website between 16.01.2018 and 29.01.2018. That means, the method in which the cadre is to be chosen was made known well in advance and the actual mechanism of choosing the cadre was made available from the website for full 13 days.

It is not a case where the efforts made by the applicant to upload her option since 16.01.2018 did not fructify and in spite of her efforts to convince the respondents to help her in uploading her option, no fruitful assistance was forthcoming. Even from the averments made in the OA and arguments advanced on her behalf, it is clear that for the first time, she made an effort to upload the option for cadre allocation after 6:00pm on 29.01.2018. This did not reach the UPSC obviously because the system does not accept. Though, it is stated that the reasons for not communicating the option was due to internet connection, we are not prepared to accept the same.

Hundreds of candidates have exercised their own options, depending upon the ranks secured by them. On exercise of such option, valuable rights accrued to them. Admittedly, the applicant did not choose the option before the stipulated time expired.

The reply given by the respondents through the communications which are impugned in the OA is strictly in accordance with the cadre allocation policy. It discloses that between 16.01.2018 and 29.01.2018, the applicant made attempts to access the website 8 times, and it was available on 5 occasions. However, she did not chose to communicate the same, which needed nothing more than pressing a button on the keyboard.

The cadre allocation policy itself provides the mechanism in clause 4, as to the allocation of the candidates who did not choose the option. There is no reason to believe that the rank of the applicant would not be taken into account in the context of applying Clause 4 of the cadre allocation policy.

We, therefore, dismiss the OA as devoid of any merits. There shall be no order as to costs.