Thursday, January 23, 2014

Why govt refers to a writ petition in an IAS officer’s inter-cadre deputation order? More about Shainamol’s protest

Ms A Shainamol, 2007 batch Himachal Pradesh cadre IAS and the one who dragged the government of India to a legal battle over not getting the cadre of her choice, has finally managed an inter-cadre deputation from Himachal Pradesh to Kerala for three years “in relaxation of extant guidelines on compassionate grounds”. But the DoPT in its notification dated January 20, 2014, added that “this approval for inter cadre deputation is without prejudice to the Government’s stand in the Writ Petition which…
Ms A Shainamol, IAS (HP:2007) has filed against her allocation to Himachal Pradesh cadre.”
It was the year 2009, the then IAS probationer and 20th rank holder of the civil services examination of 2006 Shainamol approached the CAT as she was denied the cadre of her preference despite her qualification as an OBC candidate. But she was allotted Himachal Pradesh cadre in the general category. And the one who stood at 26th rank (unlike 20th rank of Shainamol) became the first candidate under OBC, and was allotted the Maharashtra cadre (outsider). According to Shainamol’s appeal, her preference was Kerala cadre and since no vacancy was filled beyond one, in the general category, she had to be posted outside Kerala in which case, the benefits available to the OBC candidates should have been available to her. Her grievance was that once she could not be accommodated in the home state as a general candidate, then, she must be given the preference in OBC category. In that case, she should have been allotted Maharashtra cadre, instead of Himachal Pradesh.
But the government, represented by the then DoPT secretary argued that as the applicant was enlisted in the general cadre due to her merit, her allotment to Himachal Pradesh was strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant cadre rules. “Allotment of cadre is an incidence of service and a member of an all-India Service bears liability to serve in any part of India,” said the government’s counsels quoting the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajiv Yadav (1994).
In fact, a judgement by CAT-Ernakulam pronounced on July 8, 2009 by Dr KBS Rajan, judicial member and Ms K Noorjehan, administrative member, asked the government to consider Shainamol’s wish to get Maharashtra cadre. “…the applicant is entitled to prefer her choice State as an outsider as an OBC candidate and as her preference is Maharashtra, respondents are directed to consider the same and accommodate the applicant in the Maharashtra cadre,” the CAT judgement said.
But Shainamol remained as a Himachal Pradesh cadre officer. She has so far served at Kangra, Nahan and Kullu. In Kullu, she served as an additional deputy commissioner and then she joined as additional director in Himachal Pradesh’s industry department.


  1. i think the criteria must change...
    n the authorities must open their eyes n years