Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain has allowed the Union Government’s petition, setting aside a tribunal direction to shift an Indian Forest Service officer—allocated the Nagaland cadre—to the Rajasthan cadre, which he had listed sixth. The Court said home-State cadre allocation depends on listing the home State as the first preference; willingness to serve there or a lower preference creates no enforceable claim.

The writ petition was filed by the Union of India challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in an original application filed by an officer of the Indian Forest Service. The dispute arose from the cadre allocation process following the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2009.

Also Read: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Validity Of S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Mandating Prior Sanction For Investigation; Matter Referred To Larger Bench

The officer had indicated willingness to be considered for allocation to his home state while filling the application form. However, in the final cadre preference list submitted by him, the home state was placed as the sixth preference, with another state indicated as the first preference. At the time of allocation, certain insider vacancies were available in the home state across different categories.

The officer contended before the Tribunal that despite indicating willingness for the home state and availability of insider vacancies, he was wrongly denied allocation to that state and was instead allotted another state lower in his preference order. He alleged incorrect application of the Cadre Allocation Policy for All India Services, 2008.

The Tribunal accepted the contention and directed reconsideration of the officer’s case for allocation to the home state by creation of a supernumerary post. Aggrieved by this direction, the Union of India approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition.

The Court recorded that the factual position was undisputed and noted that the officer had clearly placed his home state as the sixth preference in the final preference list. The Court observed that “the respondent, in his final preference, had given 1st preference to the State of Himachal Pradesh, with Rajasthan as his 6th preference.”

While examining the Cadre Allocation Policy, the Court stated that “a candidate shall be allotted to his Home cadre or any other cadre, as the case may be, on the basis of his merit, preference and vacancy available at his turn in his category.” The Bench analysed Clauses 5 to 8 of the policy and explained the step-wise mechanism prescribed for allocation of insider and outsider vacancies.

The Court observed that “if Clause 8 of the Cadre Allocation Policy is to operate, the candidate must give his/her Home State as his/her first preference otherwise the whole scheme of Clause 8 would fail.” It further reasoned that permitting allocation of a home state irrespective of preference order would negate the merit-preference framework under the policy.

The Bench stated that “the Cadre Allocation Policy cannot be read to mean that irrespective of the preference of the candidate, if an insider vacancy is available in his Home cadre and he has opted for the same, only the Home cadre will be allocated.”

Referring to settled principles, the Court recorded that “allocation of a particular cadre is not a matter of right” and that an officer has only “a right to be considered for appointment and being allocated a cadre in terms of the Cadre Allocation Policy.”

On the Tribunal’s direction to create a supernumerary post, the Court observed that it could not be sustained as it was inconsistent with the policy framework governing cadre allocation.

Also Read: Detention Order Issued In Delhi Not Enough To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PITNDPS Preventive Detention Challenge

The Court held that “we are unable to sustain the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal. The respondent was rightly not considered for the insider vacancy for his Home Cadre, that is, the State of Rajasthan, as he had chosen the same as his 6th preference of his cadre allocation, and when considered for the same as an Outsider Candidate, did not qualify as per his merit.”

“The Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside.” It further ordered that “the petition is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, along with Mr. Shailendra Mishra, Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, and Mr. Chanakya Kene, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Krishnandu Haldar, and Mr. Abu Hassan Usmani, Advocates

Case Title: Union of India v. Raj Priy Singh
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:137-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 77/2015
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain