Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Rajendra Singh Bora – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4693 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.29304 of 2018)
Decided On : 22-04-2026
(A) Service Law – Transfer – Distinction between transfer and change in cadre – Two operate in entirely different domains and carry different legal and administrative consequences – Transfer refers to change in place of posting of an employee within same cadre or service – Individual continues to belong to same service structure, governed by same rules, with no impact on seniority or substantive status – It is an incident of service, routinely exercised by administration for functional, administrative, or public interest considerations – In essence, only location or assignment changes, not identity of service to which employee belongs – Change in cadre, by contrast, involves a shift from one cadre to another and alters very framework within which employee’s service is regulated – It is not a mere relocation but a structural change that may affect seniority, promotional avenues, and applicable service conditions – Such a change is exceptional in nature and typically requires specific statutory authority or higher-level approval, given its far-reaching implications – Difference is clear and substantive – Transfer is a matter of administrative convenience within same service, whereas a change in cadre entails reconfiguration of employee’s service identity itself. (Para 7)
(B) Service Law – Cadre – Cadre allocation process is governed by three criteria: option, domicile and inclusion of junior most personnel in reverse order of seniority – Appellant had been granted notional appointment and has also submitted, in various representations, that he is a resident of present-day Uttarakhand – On both these counts request for reallocation of cadre ought to have been acceded to – His son has been declared to be cognitively challenged with no scope for improvement/betterment in his condition – When such exception applies, allocation to be made is as per option exercised by employee – On this count also, appellant’s appointment in hill cadre taken from original date, should have been translated into appointment with successor State – Impugned Judgment set aside – Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, directed to facilitate forthwith reallocation of appellant to State of Uttarakhand. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant had requested the Court to issue a mandamus to the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, thereby effecting his change of cadre from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, on account of the fact that when he appeared for the Combined Lower Subordinate Service Examinations in 1995, he had opted for ‘hill region’ posting, which was rejected.
Findings of Court:
It is requested that Chief Justice of High Court, ascertain number of such cases long pending and endeavour to have them decided expeditiously by possibly by distributing them across benches which would ensure that they are taken up and decided within a comparatively shorter span of time.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment distinguishes between transfer and change in cadre, asserting they are distinct with different legal/administrative consequences. (!) - Cadre allocation follows three criteria: option, domicile, and inclusion of junior most personnel in reverse seniority; appellant’s request to reallocate to Uttarakhand should have been acceded. (!) (!) - When exceptional medical/mental-family hardship cases apply, allocation is to be based on employee’s option; appellant’s hill cadre should have translated to the successor State appointment. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. Rajendra Singh Bora - the employee challenges a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, passed in Writ A No. 20783 of 2013 on 11.04.2018 whereby he had requested the Court to issue a mandamus to the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, thereby effecting his change of cadre from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, on account of the fact that when he appeared for the Combined Lower Subordinate Service Examinations in 1995, he had opted for ‘hill region’ posting, which was rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant appeared for and cleared the competitive exam mentioned above, conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow, with what could be considered good marks i.e., 672 in total out of 900. The mark-sheet reflecting the said result as obtained is Annexure-P-3. While opting for, Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools, his preference was the ‘hill area of Uttar Pradesh’. Despite such a situation, the appellant was not appointed for the reason that he only submitted his B.Ed (Bachelor of Education marksheet) at the time of interview and not with the application form. Naturally, those below him in the merit list were appointed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 16613 of 1997 which came to be allowed on 13.02.2004. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in allowing this petition was that Condition No. 7 of the Advertisement, pursuant to which the appellant applied for the position stated that candidates applying for the said position should annex the B.Ed marksheets, but it did not say that those applications which does not annex the same, will be rejected. Moreover, it was noted that the production of marksheets at the time of interview is an admitted fact. Given the remote area from where the appellant hailed, the Court observed that a hyper-technical view should not be adopted and as such allowed the appellant to be appointed from the same date as the other candidates, along with consequential benefits except for arrears and salary.
4. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed1[Special Appeal No. 781 of 2004] against these findings but the same came to be dismissed by order dated 07.10.2009. He was finally appointed by the Director (Basic) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, to the position of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools notionally from 11th June 1997. He joined the said service on 26th July 2011 in Kashi Ram Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. He submitted representations to the above said Authorities on 20th May 2012, 19th July 2012 and 13th October 2012 respectively requesting that he be granted the ‘hill cadre’ as originally requested. A further ground for making such an application was that his son was cognitively disabled. The record does not reveal the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh to have responded to the representations made by the appellant.
5. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition, in which the order impugned before us, was passed, came to be filed. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing that once the appellant was allotted the Uttar Pradesh Service, no question arose about the transfer to Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We may record at the outset that we do not agree with the determination made by the High Court. The reasoning in law, shall come forth in the following paragraphs.
7. First, the distinction between a transfer and a change in cadre is plain and does not admit confusion. The two operate in entirely different domains and carry different legal and administrative consequences. A transfer refers to a change in the place of posting of an employee within the same cadre or service. The individual continues to belong to the same service structure, governed by the same rules, with no impact on seniority or substantive status. It is an incident of se
(1) Transfer – Distinction between transfer and change in cadre – Two operate in entirely different domains and carry different legal and administrative consequences.(2) Cadre – In an exceptional cas....
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.
Cadre – Scope of change – Finality has to be attached to process of selection.
Judicial intervention in cadre allocation is limited; rectifications post long delays can destabilize existing management unless egregious errors are proven.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Respondent was entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana even on spouse ground and the Union of India erred in rejecting the requ....
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
