The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer seeking reallocation from the Tamil Nadu cadre to the Rajasthan cadre against an “insider vacancy” arising from the 2004 Civil Services Examination, holding that cadre allocation cannot be reopened after long delays as it would disrupt the finality of the selection process.
The appellant, an IPS officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, was selected through the 2004 Combined Civil Services Examination. Based on his merit position, he was allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, where he has continued to serve since his appointment.
The dispute traces back to an “insider vacancy” in the Rajasthan cadre for the 2004 batch. A senior candidate, Rishikesh Meena, who was already serving as an IPS officer from the 2003 batch, qualified again in the 2004 examination but chose not to join the IPS afresh, as it would have resulted in loss of seniority. He also declined the insider vacancy in Rajasthan.
Following this, Rajesh Kumar, the next candidate in the merit list, claimed the Rajasthan insider vacancy. His request was rejected by the Union of India, prompting him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). In 2008, the Tribunal ruled in his favour and directed that the Rajasthan insider vacancy be offered to him.
The Union of India challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and consequently lost interest in joining the IPS against the Rajasthan vacancy. The High Court disposed of the writ petition in 2010, recording that the grievance no longer survived, while expressly leaving the legal question open and directing that the Tribunal’s order should not be treated as a precedent.
The appellant, who was third in the merit list for the Rajasthan insider vacancy, raised his claim only in 2010—six years after the 2004 selection—arguing that since the two senior candidates had not joined the Rajasthan cadre, he was entitled to be considered for that vacancy. He contended that this was merely a correction in cadre allocation and not a change, and asserted that similar adjustments had been made by the authorities in other cases.
The CAT rejected his application in 2011, a decision that was upheld by the Delhi High Court. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the legality of the appellant’s original cadre allocation to Tamil Nadu. It emphasised that the appellant’s claim was not based on any illegality in the allocation process but solely on the non-joining of senior candidates against the Rajasthan insider vacancy.
Rejecting the appeal, the Court held that allowing such claims after several years would make cadre allocation “fluid” and never final. The Bench cautioned that permitting a change of cadre at this stage would trigger a chain reaction—creating vacancies in other cadres and encouraging further claims by candidates lower in the merit list.
The Court also observed that no material was placed on record to show that the Rajasthan insider vacancy of 2004 remained unfilled for over two decades. It underlined the necessity of finality in the annual civil services selection process, particularly given that more than 20 selection cycles had taken place since 2004.
Case Details
Case Title: Rupesh Kumar Meena Versus Union Of India & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos.11302-11303 Of 2016
Date: 04/02/3036
Read More: Child’s Welfare Can’ Be Decided by Ignoring Broken Promises and Court Orders: Supreme Court
