Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed a plea by a 2004-batch Tamil Nadu cadre IPS officer seeking appointment against a 2004 “insider” vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre after two higher-ranked candidates declined to join. The Court upheld the denial of cadre reallocation and declined to direct any belated adjustment for that vacancy year. The Bench recorded that the officer raised the claim only in 2010, about six years after the relevant selection year. It observed that intervention more than two decades later would keep cadre allocation open-ended and prevent finality in annual allocations.

The appellant, an IPS officer belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, was selected in the 2004 Combined Civil Services Examination and allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, where he has served since appointment.

Also Read: Welfare Of Child Paramount But Not Sole Consideration In Custody Disputes; Courts Must Also Weigh Conduct, Finances And Children’s Comfort: Supreme Court

The dispute concerns allocation against an ‘insider’ vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre for the 2004 batch. A candidate senior in merit had qualified for IPS in 2004 but did not join against the insider vacancy. The next candidate in merit sought allocation to the Rajasthan cadre and succeeded before the Tribunal, but during pendency of the writ petition filed by the Union of India, he was selected to the IAS and did not pursue the IPS vacancy.

The appellant, who was third in merit for the insider vacancy, later sought allocation to Rajasthan on the ground that the two candidates above him had not joined. The Union of India opposed the claim, contending that cadre allocation once made could not be reopened and that the vacancy stood consumed when initially offered.

The Court observed, “The undisputed facts which emerge from the material on record are that the appellant who belonged to ST Category was selected and appointed to IPS in the Combined Civil Services Examination held in the year 2004. As per his merit, he was allocated Tamil Nadu Cadre where he is serving ever since his appointment.”

It recorded, “By this time, six years had lapsed for the 2004 selection.” The Court noted that the appellant raised his grievance after this period, seeking allocation to Rajasthan on the basis that two senior candidates had not joined the insider vacancy.

On the scope of the dispute, the Court stated, “It is not a case where the allegation of the appellant is regarding any illegality committed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the allocation of cadres as per the merit position of the appellant in the 2004 Combined Civil Services Examination.” It further stated, “His claim is based on the fact that, candidate senior to him having not accepted the ‘insider’ vacancy of 2004 Batch in the State of Rajasthan, the same should have been offered to the next candidate.”

Addressing the appellant’s position in merit, the Court recorded, “It is not in dispute that the appellant was not the next candidate in the order of merit to be offered the ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan, in case the first one had not joined.” It added, “Rather, his case is when the second candidate did not join, he should be offered that vacancy.”

On the consequences of accepting such a claim, 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 Bench further stated, “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… Finality has to be attached to the process of selection.”

The Court also recorded, “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.”

Also Read: Insurer Cannot Recover Compensation Without Hearing Vehicle Owner On Alleged Policy Violation: Calcutta High Court

The Court directed, “For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present appeals and same are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

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

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 119

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 11302–11303 of 2016

Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar