Judicial intervention in cadre allocation is limited; rectifications post long delays can destabilize existing management unless egregious errors are proven.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. These Petitions assail the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] in Original Applications which raised substantially similar challenges. Since, both the Petitions arise from the same lis and turn upon overlapping issues, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the W.P. (C) 18908/2025 is being treated as the lead case to extrapolate our decision in both the Petitions, while highlighting the distinct facts of W.P. (C) 121/2025, as and when relevant.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute arose due to the wrongful cadre allocation of the Petitioners, as reflected in the Cadre Allocation List dated 05.04.2019 [hereinafter referred to as ‘List of 2019’], which is alleged to be wrongful and contrary to the applicable Cadre Allocation Policy dated 05.09.2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Policy of 2017’].

3. The Petitioner appeared in the Union Public Service Commission-Indian Forest Service (UPSC-IFS) Examination, 2017 and was selected for appointment to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) vide final result dated 19.02.2018. Upon selection, the Petitioner, duly submitted his preferences for cadre allocation, indicating, inter alia, his first preference as the Uttarakhand cadre. However, by way of the List of 2019, the Petitioner was wrongly allocated the Maharashtra cadre. Similarly, to point out very briefly, the Petitioner in W.P. (C) 121/2025, was allocated the Kerala cadre, as against his home cadre, i.e., Rajasthan Cadre.

4. Prior thereto, the Respondent No.1 had issued the Policy of 2017, under which, a candidate was to be allotted to his/her home cadre on the basis of merit, preference and availability of vacancy at his/her turn in the relevant category. Further, the policy also provided that for allocation to the home cadre against an insider vacancy, a candidate must (i) express his preference for the zone in which his home cadre falls, and (ii) indicate his first preference to the home cadre within that zone; failing which, the candidate shall not be considered for allocation to his home cadre at all.

5. It is pertinent to highlight, at this stage, that the cadre allocation pursuant to the Civil Services Examination (CSE) is carried out in two stages, namely, determination of vacancies and the procedure for allocation of cadres against such vacancies.

6. Aggrieved by the wrongful cadre allocation, the Petitioner in W.P.(C)18908/2025 and W.P.(C)121/2025, approached the Tribunal, in the years 2021 and 2022, respectively, seeking to set-aside the List of 2019, thereby allocating the Petitioners their preferred home cadre, i.e., the Uttarakhand cadre and Rajasthan cadre. However, the OAs filed by the Petitioners were dismissed by the Tribunal, resultantly, the Petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment before this Court.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:

8. It is the case of the Petitioner that, at the first stage of determination of vacancies, there occurred an error in cadre-wise vacancy distribution on part of the Respondent No.2. Further, it is also his case that on account of the said error in cadre-wise vacancy distribution at the stage of determination of vacancies, he was not considered for allocation to his first pr