Supreme Court Rejects TN Cadre IPS Officer's Claim For Rajasthan Cadre Vacancy Of 2004

The Supreme Court recently rejected a 2004 batch Tamil Nadu Cadre IPS officer's plea seeking appointment against an insider vacancy for the same year in the Rajasthan Cadre after two senior candidates declined to join.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar noted that appellant Rupesh Kumar Meena raised the claim six years later in 2010, and observed that interfering after more than 20 years since the vacancy year would render the cadre allocation process fluid indefinitely.

“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 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 otherwise may have been allocated to some other State. This may also have effect on appointment against any 'insider' vacancy. Finality has to be attached to the process of selection. Before us, no material has been produced to show that the aforesaid 'insider' vacancy for the year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years that have passed.”

Factual Background

One Rishikesh Meena qualified for the IPS in the 2004 examination. As he was already serving as a 2003 IPS officer, he did not join the 2004 batch and also did not accept the insider vacancy offered to him in Rajasthan.

The next candidate in merit, Rajesh Kumar, sought allocation to the Rajasthan insider vacancy. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application and directed that he be allocated the Rajasthan insider vacancy.

The Union of India challenged that order before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected to the Indian Administrative Service and joined the IAS. As a result, his grievance regarding the IPS insider vacancy did not survive. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on September 14, 2010, while recording that the Tribunal's order would not be treated as a precedent and leaving the question of law open.

Rupesh Kumar Meena, who was third in the merit list for the Rajasthan insider vacancy, raised his claim only after these developments. He approached the Tribunal in 2011, contending that since both candidates senior to him had not joined against the insider vacancy for the 2004 batch, he was entitled to be allocated to the Rajasthan cadre.

The Tribunal rejected his plea, holding that a candidate does not acquire a right to claim such a vacancy merely because a senior candidate does not join.

The Delhi High Court upheld this view, and later dismissed Meena's review petition. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Proceedings

Before the Supreme Court, Meena argued that his request was not for a change of cadre but only a correction, as he had a legal right to be appointed against the insider vacancy for Rajasthan once his seniors refused. He also contended that there was no delay on his part, as the situation became clear only in 2010 after Rajesh Kumar did not join the IPS.

The Union of India opposed the claim, submitting that once a candidate is allocated to a cadre, including against an insider vacancy, the vacancy stands consumed. It was also argued that permitting such claims years later would unsettle cadre allocations and lead to a chain reaction of further claims.

The Court observed that the selection in question pertained to the year 2004 and that by the time Meena raised his claim, six years had already elapsed. The Court noted that Meena had been serving in the Tamil Nadu cadre for more than two decades and that more than 20 subsequent civil services selections had taken place in the meantime. It held that allowing a claim at this stage would render the cadre allocation process fluid indefinitely and disturb the finality of selections.

The Court also noted that no material had been placed on record to show that the Rajasthan insider vacancy for the 2004 batch had remained vacant for over 20 years and dismissed his appeals.

Headnote

Service Law – Allocation of Cadre – Indian Police Service (IPS) – Request for re allocation to 'insider' vacancy – Finality of Selection – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of an IPS officer seeking re-allocation from the Tamil Nadu cadre to an 'insider' vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre from the 2004 examination batch - held that cadre allocation cannot remain fluid indefinitely, as it would lead to a "chain reaction" of reshuffling among selected candidates from the same batch – Noted that the appellant, who was third in the merit list for the 'insider' vacancy, raised his grievance in 2010, six years after the selection process - noted that the appellant had already served in the Tamil Nadu cadre for over two decades by the time of the final hearing.

Consumption of Vacancy – Supreme Court observed that even if a senior candidate (Rishikesh Meena or Rajesh Kumar) does not join or accept an 'insider' vacancy, the next candidate in the merit list does not gain an automatic right to claim allocation to that specific post - Finality must be attached to the selection and allocation process to prevent administrative instability – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 9-12]

Case no. – Civil Appeal Nos. 11302-11303 of 2016

Case Title – Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 122