Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan has declined to reopen the Indian Forest Service cadre allocation of an officer, holding that even a conceded mistake in vacancy computation cannot justify disturbing cadre allocations after a prolonged delay due to the cascading effects on subsequent allocations. Dismissing writ petitions challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order, the Court refused to interfere with the petitioner’s 2019 allocation, which was disputed on the ground that an error in cadre-wise vacancy determination led to allotment to a non-preferred cadre instead of the home cadre.

The dispute arose from the cadre allocation of officers selected to the Indian Forest Service pursuant to the UPSC-IFS Examination, 2017. The petitioners challenged the Cadre Allocation List dated 05.04.2019, alleging that their allocation was contrary to the Cadre Allocation Policy dated 05.09.2017. According to the petitioners, despite fulfilling merit and preference requirements and seeking allocation to their respective home cadres, they were allotted different cadres owing to errors in vacancy determination.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT DG-Probe Direction, Asks Tribunal To Take Fresh Decision On Whether Competition Act Probe Is Needed Against Flipkart

It was contended that cadre allocation under the 2017 Policy involved two stages—determination of vacancies and allocation against such vacancies—and that errors occurred at the first stage due to incorrect cadre-wise vacancy computation. The petitioners asserted that this mistake resulted in denial of allocation to their preferred home cadres.

The respondents accepted that there had been an error in vacancy calculation, attributing it to manual processing undertaken while cadre allocation software was under development. According to the respondents, double counting of officers from an earlier batch distorted vacancy figures for the relevant batch. However, it was argued that reopening the cadre allocation at this stage would adversely affect subsequent allocations and disrupt overall cadre management.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original applications, following which the petitioners approached the High Court seeking interference with the Tribunal’s decision.

The Court first addressed the delay in challenging the cadre allocation and observed that “as on date nearly a period of 7 years has elapsed since the cadre allocation was finalized and implemented”, adding that interference at such a belated stage would amount to “unearthing coffins long buried in the sands of time”.

While acknowledging the existence of an error in vacancy determination, the Court recorded that “the foundation of the challenge before this Court as well as the Tribunal, is the admitted error in the vacancy determination process”. However, the Bench considered whether such an error warranted judicial intervention after a substantial lapse of time.

The Court stated that “cadre allocation is carried out on a batch-wise, all-India basis, by adopting a uniform methodology”, and held that any correction for a single officer would inevitably require recalibration of the entire batch allocation, affecting subsequent batches as well.

Addressing the potential consequences, the Court observed that directing re-allocation would “inevitably open the floodgates to similar claims from other officers” and would result in “a wholesale re-opening of past cadre allocation exercises across multiple years”, thereby causing cascading effects on national cadre management.

The Bench further noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any adverse civil consequences arising from the cadre allocation and recorded that “the Petitioner has merely disputed the location and preference of cadre, which, by itself, does not confer an enforceable, vested right”.

Relying on settled principles, the Court observed that “cadre allocation is merely an incidence of service” and reiterated that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of egregious illegality or mala fides, which were absent in the present case.

The Court also took note of the corrective measures already directed by the Tribunal, observing that “systemic corrective and accountability measures have already been set in motion”, including directions for development of an online vacancy calculation system and identification of responsibility for the error.

In view of these considerations, the Court concluded that while the error was a matter of concern administratively, it did not justify individual relief after such a long lapse of time.

Also Read: Municipal Body Must Survey Buildings Near Notified Heritage Properties To Check Illegal Constructions: Delhi High Court

The Court recorded that “the impugned judgment warrants no interference”. Having found no merit, the present petitions, along with pending applications, stand disposed of”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate; Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocate; Mr. Madhur Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC; Mr. Abhiraj Singh, GP; Ms. Monalisha Pradhan, Advocate; Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate; Mr. Akash Vajpai, CGSC; Mr. Harsh Bajpai, Advocate

Case Title: Rahul Singh Tolia v. Union of India & Ors. and Connected Matter

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:761-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 18908/2025 and W.P.(C) 121/2026

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Amit Mahajan