Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Rupesh Kumar Meena – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 11302-11303 OF 2016
Decided On : 04-02-2026
Service Law – Cadre – Scope of change – Appellant is already in service in Tamil Nadu for more than two decades – During interregnum, there have been more than 20 selections as Combined Civil Services Examination is an annual process as effort is always to fill up all vacancies – It is not a case where allegation of appellant is regarding any illegality committed by Ministry of Home Affairs in allocation of cadres as per merit position of appellant in 2004 Combined Civil Services Examination – His claim is based on the fact that candidate senior to him having not accepted ‘insider’ vacancy of 2004 Batch in State of Rajasthan, same should have been offered to next candidate – Appellant was not the next candidate in order of merit to be offered ‘insider’ vacancy in State of Rajasthan, in case first one had not joined – Rather, his case is when second candidate did not join, he should be offered that vacancy – Such a process cannot be adopted – It will result in process of allocation or change of cadres fluid for all times to come – Finality has to be attached to process of selection – No material has been produced to show that ‘insider’ vacancy for year 2004 was still lying vacant for period of more than 20 years that have passed – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
The issue before this Court is, as to whether appellant should now be allowed to change his cadre from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, against ‘insider’ vacancy. Selection pertains to year 2004.
Findings of Court:
No merit in the present appeals and same are accordingly dismissed.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case concerns the issue of changing an allocated cadre, specifically whether the appellant, who has been serving in Tamil Nadu for over two decades, can be reassigned to Rajasthan against an ‘insider’ vacancy from 2004 (!) .
The appellant's claim is not based on any illegality in the original cadre allocation but on the contention that, due to the non-acceptance of the ‘insider’ vacancy by the senior candidates, the next eligible candidate should have been offered the vacancy. However, the court clarified that such a process of fluid reallocation could undermine the finality of cadre assignments and create a chain of claims that could destabilize the allocation process (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the selection process and cadre allocation are final, and no material was presented to prove that the ‘insider’ vacancy from 2004 remained unfilled for over 20 years. Allowing such a change would open the floodgates to similar claims, leading to perpetual fluidity in cadre assignments (!) .
The court dismissed the appeals, reaffirming that the finality of cadre allocation must be maintained to preserve the integrity and stability of the selection process (!) .
The case also involved prior litigation concerning other candidates’ claims to the same vacancy, which was ultimately resolved with the understanding that the earlier tribunal orders would not set a precedent and that the question of law was left open (!) (!) .
The court noted the importance of attaching finality to cadre selection and rejected the appellant’s request for a change based on the alleged non-acceptance of the vacancy by other candidates, emphasizing that such fluidity could lead to a chain reaction affecting multiple cadre allocations (!) .
The court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the decisions of the administrative tribunals and courts below, dismissing the claims of the appellant (!) .
The decision underscores that cadre allocations, once finalized, are binding and cannot be revisited after a significant lapse of time without compelling reasons or evidence of ongoing vacancy, which was absent in this case (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of finality and stability in cadre allocations and the court’s reluctance to entertain claims that could unsettle the established process.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellant is an IPS Officer of Tamil Nadu Cadre. He was selected against a vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. He filed the present appeals challenging the orders1[Dated 26.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2011 and 21.10.2011 in Review Petition No.612 of 2011] passed by the High Court2[High of Delhi at New Delhi]. Vide the order dated 26.08.2011, the High Court upheld the order3[Dated 08.03.2011] passed by the Tribunal,4[Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi] by which the application5[O.A. No.2326 of 2010] filed by the appellant was dismissed. Subsequently, review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one Rishikesh Meena appeared in Civil Services Examination held in the year 2003. As per the merit list, he was selected in the Indian Police Service (IPS) and was allocated West Bengal cadre. He again appeared in 2004 Civil Services Examination and qualified against the vacancy of an IPS Officer. As he was already serving as an IPS Officer, he never chose to join the 2004 batch, as he was to lose one year seniority. In this batch, he was even offered ‘insider’ vacancy of IPS cadre in the State of Rajasthan, however, he did not accept the same as well.
2.1 Next Officer in the merit list for ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan for the batch of 2004, was Rajesh Kumar. His claim was that since Rishikesh Meena did not accept the offer for ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan, he should be offered the same. His claim was rejected by the Union of India. Otherwise, he was originally allocated to Orissa Cadre. Aggrieved against the rejection of his claim for re-allocation, Rajesh Kumar filed O.A. No.102 of 2007 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2008 allowed the aforesaid O.A. and directed that ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan should be offered to Rajesh Kumar as offer of appointment to Rishikesh Meena had not been accepted by him.
2.2 Aggrieved against the same, Union of India preferred writ petition6[Writ Petition No.5221 of 2008] before the High Court. As during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), he joined as such and his grievance did not survive. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 14.09.2010, leaving the question of law open.
2.3 The appellant/Rupesh Kumar Meena was third in the merit list for insider vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre in the batch of 2004 examination. The moment the first two candidates chose not to join the Rajasthan cadre, offered on the basis of ‘insider’ vacancy, the appellant staked his claim to be considered for appointment against the same. He filed OA7[O.A. No.2326 of 2010] before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2011. The High Court upheld the same, vide the order dated 26.08.2011. Even review application was also dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2011. These are the orders impugned before this Court.
3. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the stand of the respondents that when the vacancy was offered to Rishikesh Meena, the same stood filled, was wrong. He submitted that, ever since the appellant was appointed to IPS and allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, he has been serving in that State. The only issue for consideration in the present appeal is regarding his allocation to Rajasthan cadre on ‘insider’ vacancy for which he has a legitimate right, being eligible and entitled to the same, as two other candidates, senior to him in the merit list, had not joined the Rajasthan cadre against that vacancy. It is not a change of cadre rather merely a correction. The situation became clear only in the year 2010 when despite the Tribunal’s order in favour of Rajesh Kumar, he did not join to occupy the ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan, as he was selected in the IAS cadre, during
Cadre – Scope of change – Finality has to be attached to process of selection.
Cadre allocation decisions must adhere to a candidate's expressed preferences in order of merit; failing this, an insider status claim based on lower preferences is invalid.
The allocation of cadre in the IAS is governed by strict principles that prioritize category-specific vacancies, and candidates do not have a right to claim allocation to their home state.
The allocation of cadre to IPS officers must adhere to the principles of equality and the insider-outsider roster as per the Cadre Allocation Policy.
Appointment discrepancies based on merit require adherence to statutory rules, and procedural delays must not harm candidates' rights to seniority and benefits.
Judicial intervention in cadre allocation is limited; rectifications post long delays can destabilize existing management unless egregious errors are proven.
Candidates from Scheduled Areas must be appointed and posted according to their selection for Scheduled Area vacancies, respecting their rights under the applicable rules.
A candidate belonging to a reserved category, if selected under the General/Open Category, is entitled to be considered for posting as per his or her preference on the basis of his or her merit among....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
