The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a Tamil Nadu cadre IPS officer seeking a reallocation to the Rajasthan cadre against an ‘insider’ vacancy from the year 2004. The Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the process of cadre allocation cannot remain fluid indefinitely, observing that allowing such changes years later would trigger a “chain reaction” affecting the seniority and allocation of other candidates.
Case Background
The appellant, Rupesh Kumar Meena, an IPS officer of the 2004 batch belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, was allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre. He challenged the orders of the Delhi High Court dated August 26, 2011, and October 21, 2011, which had upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench, Delhi) dismissing his claim for the Rajasthan cadre.
The dispute originated from the Civil Services Examination of 2004. One Rishikesh Meena, who was already serving as an IPS officer (West Bengal cadre) from the 2003 batch, qualified again in 2004. He was offered an ‘insider’ vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre but did not accept it as he would lose seniority. The next candidate in merit for the Rajasthan ‘insider’ vacancy was Rajesh Kumar. When his claim was rejected, Rajesh Kumar approached the Tribunal, which directed in 2008 that the vacancy be offered to him.
However, the Union of India challenged this before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and his grievance did not survive. The High Court disposed of the matter in 2010, leaving the question of law open. Subsequently, the appellant, Rupesh Kumar Meena, who was third in the merit list for the ‘insider’ vacancy, claimed that since the two candidates senior to him had not joined, he should be allocated the Rajasthan cadre.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the vacancy stood unfilled because Rishikesh Meena did not accept the offer and Rajesh Kumar subsequently joined the IAS. He contended that he had a “legitimate right” to the vacancy as the next eligible candidate. It was argued that this was “merely a correction” rather than a change of cadre. regarding the delay, the counsel submitted that the situation only crystallized in 2010 when Rajesh Kumar did not join the post, after which the appellant immediately raised his grievance.
The Union of India opposed the plea, arguing that there was a “huge delay” as the appellant approached the Tribunal in 2010 for a 2004 vacancy. The counsel for the respondents submitted that once a selected candidate is allocated to a specific cadre, the vacancy stands “consumed.” It was further argued that shifting the appellant from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan would create a vacancy in the Tamil Nadu cadre for the year 2004, necessitating a reshuffling of the list. The Union contended that this would lead to a “chain reaction,” making the allocation process fluid forever.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant could be allowed to change his cadre two decades after the selection. The Bench noted that the appellant is already serving in Tamil Nadu and that more than 20 selection processes have occurred since 2004.
Addressing the appellant’s contention that he should be offered the vacancy because the second candidate (Rajesh Kumar) did not join, the Court observed:
“In our view, such a process cannot be adopted. It will result in the process of allocation or change of cadres fluid for all times to come.”
The Court accepted the Union of India’s submission regarding the potential administrative repercussions of allowing such a claim. Justice Bindal, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The result thereof may be, that after shifting of the appellant from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, in terms of the merit list for the 2004 Selection, a candidate below the appellant may claim change of cadre, who other wise may have been allocated to some other State. This may also have effect on appointment against any ‘insider’ vacancy.”
The Court emphasized the necessity of closing the selection process at a specific point, stating:
“Finality has to be attached to the process of selection.”
The Bench further noted that no material was produced to demonstrate that the specific ‘insider’ vacancy from 2004 was still lying vacant after more than 20 years.
Decision
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them. The Court concluded that even if a candidate senior in merit does not join, the allocation cannot be kept pending for years to be offered to the next candidate in line, as this would destabilize the entire cadre allocation structure.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Rupesh Kumar Meena vs. Union of India & Others
- Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 11302-11303 of 2016
- Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
