Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 119
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11302-11303 OF 2016
RUPESH KUMAR MEENA … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellant is an IPS Officer of Tamil Nadu Cadre. He was
selected against a vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe (ST) category.
1
He filed the present appeals challenging the orders passed by the
2
High Court . Vide the order dated 26.08.2011, the High Court upheld
3 4 5
the order passed by the Tribunal, by which the application filed by
1
Dated 26.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2011 and 21.10.2011 in Review Petition No.612 of 2011
2
High of Delhi at New Delhi
3
Dated 08.03.2011
4
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
5
O.A. No.2326 of 2010
1
the appellant was dismissed. Subsequently, review petition filed by
the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one
Rishikesh Meena appeared in Civil Services Examination held in the
year 2003. As per the merit list, he was selected in the Indian Police
Service (IPS) and was allocated West Bengal cadre. He again appeared
in 2004 Civil Services Examination and qualified against the vacancy of
an IPS Officer. As he was already serving as an IPS Officer, he never
chose to join the 2004 batch, as he was to lose one year seniority. In
this batch, he was even offered ‘insider’ vacancy of IPS cadre in the
State of Rajasthan, however, he did not accept the same as well.
2.1 Next Officer in the merit list for ‘insider’ vacancy in the State
of Rajasthan for the batch of 2004, was Rajesh Kumar. His claim was that
since Rishikesh Meena did not accept the offer for ‘insider’ vacancy in
the State of Rajasthan, he should be offered the same. His claim was
rejected by the Union of India. Otherwise, he was originally allocated
to Orissa Cadre. Aggrieved against the rejection of his claim for
re-allocation, Rajesh Kumar filed O.A. No.102 of 2007 before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2008 allowed the
aforesaid O.A. and directed that ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
2
Rajasthan should be offered to Rajesh Kumar as offer of appointment to
Rishikesh Meena had not been accepted by him.
2.2 Aggrieved against the same, Union of India preferred writ
6
petition before the High Court. As during the pendency of the
aforesaid writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected in the Indian
Administrative Service (IAS), he joined as such and his grievance did
not survive. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 14.09.2010,
leaving the question of law open.
2.3 The appellant/Rupesh Kumar Meena was third in the merit
list for insider vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre in the batch of 2004
examination. The moment the first two candidates chose not to join the
Rajasthan cadre, offerred on the basis of ‘insider’ vacancy, the
appellant staked his claim to be considered for appointment against
7
the same. He filed OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide
order dated 08.03.2011. The High Court upheld the same, vide the
order dated 26.08.2011. Even review appliation was also dismissed
vide order dated 21.10.2011. These are the orders impugned before
this Court.
6
Writ Petition No.5221 of 2008
7
O.A. No.2326 of 2010
3
3. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that, the stand of the respondents that when the vacancy
was offered to Rishikesh Meena, the same stood filled, was wrong. He
submitted that, ever since the appellant was appointed to IPS and
allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, he has been serving in that State. The
only issue for consideration in the present appeal is regarding his
allocation to Rajasthan cadre on ‘insider’ vacancy for which he has a
legitimate right, being eligible and entitled to the same, as two other
candidates, senior to him in the merit list, had not joined the Rajasthan
cadre against that vacancy. It is not a change of cadre rather merely a
correction. The situation became clear only in the year 2010 when
despite the Tribunal’s order in favour of Rajesh Kumar, he did not join
to occupy the ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan, as he was
selected in the IAS cadre, during the pendency of the writ petition filed
by the Union of India. Immediately thereafter, the appellant had raised
his grievance. There is no delay as such. It was further argued that
there are numerous examples wherein similar adjustments were made
by the Union of India later on, hence, delay does not matter. He further
submitted that the said vacancy is still available, as it was not filled up.
4. In response, learned counsel for the Union of India,
submitted that, in the case in hand there is no dispute that the appellant
4
was rightly allocated Tamil Nadu Cadre after his selection to IPS. There
is huge delay in filing of the application (O.A. No.2326 of 2010) by the
appellant before the Tribunal. The allocation to a cadre cannot be kept
pending for years together for change, in the manner suggested by the
appellant. The ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan pertains to
the year 2004. For the first time, issue was raised by the appellant in
the year 2010. In fact, prior to that, he did not have any right as the
person selected and senior to him, namely, Rajesh Kumar, was
available and was also litigating for his claim. If the argument of the
appellant is accepted at this stage, this will open a pandora’s box.
Shifting of appellant from Tamil Nadu cadre to Rajasthan cadre will
create a vacancy in the Tamil Nadu cadre for the year 2004. Meaning
thereby, reshuffling in the list of the selected candidates in that year.
Consequently, someone selected in that year may also claim that, for
the vacancy arising on account of the shifting of the appellant from
Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, he may be entitled to Tamil Nadu cadre and
so on and so forth. The allocation of cadre will never be final and it will
remain fluid for all times to come, leading to a kind of chain reaction.
4.1 He further submitted that the definite stand taken by the
Union of India before the Tribunal was that once a selected candidate
is allocated to a specific cadre (including on insider vacancy), as in the
5
case in hand, the vacancy stands consumed. Meaning thereby, when
Rishikesh Meena was allocated to ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
Rajasthan, the same stood consumed. Hence, appellant cannot raise
any claim on that post.
4.2 He further submitted that against the order passed by the
Tribunal in favour of Rajesh Kumar, the Union of India had filed writ
petition and while the matter was sub judice, he got selected to IAS.
The High Court while disposing of the writ petition clearly mentioned
that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal will not be treated as
a precedent and the question of law was kept open. He further
submitted that if there is any error in the allocation of cadre, the
correction is always done but not in the type of cases the appellant is
claiming relief.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paperbook. The arguments in the appeal were heard on 22.01.2026
and the judgement was reserved. Learned counsel for Union of India
was permitted to supply copy of the Rules or instructions on the subject
on or before 27.01.2026. Nothing has been supplied. The matter cannot
be kept pending on that account.
6
6. 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.
7. Another candidate, namely, Rishikesh Meena, appeared in
the 2003 examination. As per his merit, he was appointed to the IPS
Cadre and allocated to the State of West Bengal. Being ambitious,
Rishikesh Meena appeared in 2004 Civil Services Examination. He
again qualified for IPS as per the merit list. As there would not have
been any improvement in his status, he did not join against the
selection in 2004 Batch. He even did not accept ‘insider’ vacancy of IPS
Cadre in the State of Rajasthan for 2004 Batch.
8. Rajesh Kumar was next in merit after Rishikesh Meena. He
staked his claim for appointment against ‘insider’ vacancy as Rishikesh
Meena did not accept the same. His claim was rejected by the
Competent Authority. Aggrieved against the same, he filed OA No. 102
of 2007 before the Tribunal. The same was allowed vide order dated
02.01.2008. Rajesh Kumar was directed to be allocated against ‘insider’
vacancy in the State of Rajasthan. The aforesaid order was challenged
7
by the Union of India before the High Court. As Rajesh Kumar wanted
to progress in his career, he again appeared in Combined Civil
Services Examination. During the pendency of the writ petition before
the High Court, he was selected to IAS. As a result of which, he was no
more interested to join as IPS against ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
Rajasthan. The writ petition filed by the Union of India before the High
Court was disposed of, noticing that the grievance of Rajesh Kumar did
not survive any further. However, considering the apprehension of the
petitioner before the High Court, it was directed that the order of the
Tribunal impugned before the High Court need not be treated as a
precedent and the question of law raised therein was left open to be
decided in an appropriate case. The aforesaid order was passed on
14.09.2010.
9. By this time, six years had lapsed for the 2004 selection. The
appellant who was third in the merit list, claiming to be below Rajesh
Kumar and entitled to be offered the ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
Rajasthan raised his grievance. O.A. was filed before the Tribunal. His
submission was that the two persons above him in the merit list, having
not joined against the ‘insider’ vacancy for the year 2004, he should be
offered the same. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the O.A. and
the same was dismissed, finding that the Ministry of Home Affairs has
8
not committed any irregularity in allocation of cadres. Even if
candidate had not joined, the next one will not have any right to claim
allocation to the same post. The earlier order passed in Rajesh Kumar’s
case was differentiated. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the
appellant preferred writ petition before the High Court, which met with
the same fate.
10. In the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix, the issue before
this Court is, as to whether the appellant should now be allowed to
change his cadre from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, against the ‘insider’
vacancy. The selection pertains to the year 2004. The appellant is
already in service in Tamil Nadu for more than two decades. During the
interregnum, there have been more than 20 selections as Combined
Civil Services Examination is an annual process as the effort is always
to fill up all the vacancies.
11. 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. 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
9
been offered to the next candidate. Such a relief having been denied
to the next candidate Rajesh Kumar, he raised grievance and
succeeded before the Tribunal. However, he having been selected to
IAS during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, was
no more interested against that vacancy. The writ petition was
disposed of in the year 2010. It was at this stage that the appellant
sought to stake his claim. It was six years down the line as the vacancy
pertains to the year 2004.
12. 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. Rather, his
case is when the second candidate did not join, he should be offered
that vacancy. 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 other wise 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
10
year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years
that have passed.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit
in the present appeals and same are accordingly dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
New Delhi;
February 4, 2026.
11
2026 INSC 119
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11302-11303 OF 2016
RUPESH KUMAR MEENA … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellant is an IPS Officer of Tamil Nadu Cadre. He was
selected against a vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe (ST) category.
1
He filed the present appeals challenging the orders passed by the
2
High Court . Vide the order dated 26.08.2011, the High Court upheld
3 4 5
the order passed by the Tribunal, by which the application filed by
1
Dated 26.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2011 and 21.10.2011 in Review Petition No.612 of 2011
2
High of Delhi at New Delhi
3
Dated 08.03.2011
4
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
5
O.A. No.2326 of 2010
1
the appellant was dismissed. Subsequently, review petition filed by
the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one
Rishikesh Meena appeared in Civil Services Examination held in the
year 2003. As per the merit list, he was selected in the Indian Police
Service (IPS) and was allocated West Bengal cadre. He again appeared
in 2004 Civil Services Examination and qualified against the vacancy of
an IPS Officer. As he was already serving as an IPS Officer, he never
chose to join the 2004 batch, as he was to lose one year seniority. In
this batch, he was even offered ‘insider’ vacancy of IPS cadre in the
State of Rajasthan, however, he did not accept the same as well.
2.1 Next Officer in the merit list for ‘insider’ vacancy in the State
of Rajasthan for the batch of 2004, was Rajesh Kumar. His claim was that
since Rishikesh Meena did not accept the offer for ‘insider’ vacancy in
the State of Rajasthan, he should be offered the same. His claim was
rejected by the Union of India. Otherwise, he was originally allocated
to Orissa Cadre. Aggrieved against the rejection of his claim for
re-allocation, Rajesh Kumar filed O.A. No.102 of 2007 before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2008 allowed the
aforesaid O.A. and directed that ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
2
Rajasthan should be offered to Rajesh Kumar as offer of appointment to
Rishikesh Meena had not been accepted by him.
2.2 Aggrieved against the same, Union of India preferred writ
6
petition before the High Court. As during the pendency of the
aforesaid writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected in the Indian
Administrative Service (IAS), he joined as such and his grievance did
not survive. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 14.09.2010,
leaving the question of law open.
2.3 The appellant/Rupesh Kumar Meena was third in the merit
list for insider vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre in the batch of 2004
examination. The moment the first two candidates chose not to join the
Rajasthan cadre, offerred on the basis of ‘insider’ vacancy, the
appellant staked his claim to be considered for appointment against
7
the same. He filed OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide
order dated 08.03.2011. The High Court upheld the same, vide the
order dated 26.08.2011. Even review appliation was also dismissed
vide order dated 21.10.2011. These are the orders impugned before
this Court.
6
Writ Petition No.5221 of 2008
7
O.A. No.2326 of 2010
3
3. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that, the stand of the respondents that when the vacancy
was offered to Rishikesh Meena, the same stood filled, was wrong. He
submitted that, ever since the appellant was appointed to IPS and
allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, he has been serving in that State. The
only issue for consideration in the present appeal is regarding his
allocation to Rajasthan cadre on ‘insider’ vacancy for which he has a
legitimate right, being eligible and entitled to the same, as two other
candidates, senior to him in the merit list, had not joined the Rajasthan
cadre against that vacancy. It is not a change of cadre rather merely a
correction. The situation became clear only in the year 2010 when
despite the Tribunal’s order in favour of Rajesh Kumar, he did not join
to occupy the ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan, as he was
selected in the IAS cadre, during the pendency of the writ petition filed
by the Union of India. Immediately thereafter, the appellant had raised
his grievance. There is no delay as such. It was further argued that
there are numerous examples wherein similar adjustments were made
by the Union of India later on, hence, delay does not matter. He further
submitted that the said vacancy is still available, as it was not filled up.
4. In response, learned counsel for the Union of India,
submitted that, in the case in hand there is no dispute that the appellant
4
was rightly allocated Tamil Nadu Cadre after his selection to IPS. There
is huge delay in filing of the application (O.A. No.2326 of 2010) by the
appellant before the Tribunal. The allocation to a cadre cannot be kept
pending for years together for change, in the manner suggested by the
appellant. The ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan pertains to
the year 2004. For the first time, issue was raised by the appellant in
the year 2010. In fact, prior to that, he did not have any right as the
person selected and senior to him, namely, Rajesh Kumar, was
available and was also litigating for his claim. If the argument of the
appellant is accepted at this stage, this will open a pandora’s box.
Shifting of appellant from Tamil Nadu cadre to Rajasthan cadre will
create a vacancy in the Tamil Nadu cadre for the year 2004. Meaning
thereby, reshuffling in the list of the selected candidates in that year.
Consequently, someone selected in that year may also claim that, for
the vacancy arising on account of the shifting of the appellant from
Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, he may be entitled to Tamil Nadu cadre and
so on and so forth. The allocation of cadre will never be final and it will
remain fluid for all times to come, leading to a kind of chain reaction.
4.1 He further submitted that the definite stand taken by the
Union of India before the Tribunal was that once a selected candidate
is allocated to a specific cadre (including on insider vacancy), as in the
5
case in hand, the vacancy stands consumed. Meaning thereby, when
Rishikesh Meena was allocated to ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
Rajasthan, the same stood consumed. Hence, appellant cannot raise
any claim on that post.
4.2 He further submitted that against the order passed by the
Tribunal in favour of Rajesh Kumar, the Union of India had filed writ
petition and while the matter was sub judice, he got selected to IAS.
The High Court while disposing of the writ petition clearly mentioned
that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal will not be treated as
a precedent and the question of law was kept open. He further
submitted that if there is any error in the allocation of cadre, the
correction is always done but not in the type of cases the appellant is
claiming relief.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paperbook. The arguments in the appeal were heard on 22.01.2026
and the judgement was reserved. Learned counsel for Union of India
was permitted to supply copy of the Rules or instructions on the subject
on or before 27.01.2026. Nothing has been supplied. The matter cannot
be kept pending on that account.
6
6. 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.
7. Another candidate, namely, Rishikesh Meena, appeared in
the 2003 examination. As per his merit, he was appointed to the IPS
Cadre and allocated to the State of West Bengal. Being ambitious,
Rishikesh Meena appeared in 2004 Civil Services Examination. He
again qualified for IPS as per the merit list. As there would not have
been any improvement in his status, he did not join against the
selection in 2004 Batch. He even did not accept ‘insider’ vacancy of IPS
Cadre in the State of Rajasthan for 2004 Batch.
8. Rajesh Kumar was next in merit after Rishikesh Meena. He
staked his claim for appointment against ‘insider’ vacancy as Rishikesh
Meena did not accept the same. His claim was rejected by the
Competent Authority. Aggrieved against the same, he filed OA No. 102
of 2007 before the Tribunal. The same was allowed vide order dated
02.01.2008. Rajesh Kumar was directed to be allocated against ‘insider’
vacancy in the State of Rajasthan. The aforesaid order was challenged
7
by the Union of India before the High Court. As Rajesh Kumar wanted
to progress in his career, he again appeared in Combined Civil
Services Examination. During the pendency of the writ petition before
the High Court, he was selected to IAS. As a result of which, he was no
more interested to join as IPS against ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
Rajasthan. The writ petition filed by the Union of India before the High
Court was disposed of, noticing that the grievance of Rajesh Kumar did
not survive any further. However, considering the apprehension of the
petitioner before the High Court, it was directed that the order of the
Tribunal impugned before the High Court need not be treated as a
precedent and the question of law raised therein was left open to be
decided in an appropriate case. The aforesaid order was passed on
14.09.2010.
9. By this time, six years had lapsed for the 2004 selection. The
appellant who was third in the merit list, claiming to be below Rajesh
Kumar and entitled to be offered the ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of
Rajasthan raised his grievance. O.A. was filed before the Tribunal. His
submission was that the two persons above him in the merit list, having
not joined against the ‘insider’ vacancy for the year 2004, he should be
offered the same. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the O.A. and
the same was dismissed, finding that the Ministry of Home Affairs has
8
not committed any irregularity in allocation of cadres. Even if
candidate had not joined, the next one will not have any right to claim
allocation to the same post. The earlier order passed in Rajesh Kumar’s
case was differentiated. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the
appellant preferred writ petition before the High Court, which met with
the same fate.
10. In the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix, the issue before
this Court is, as to whether the appellant should now be allowed to
change his cadre from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan, against the ‘insider’
vacancy. The selection pertains to the year 2004. The appellant is
already in service in Tamil Nadu for more than two decades. During the
interregnum, there have been more than 20 selections as Combined
Civil Services Examination is an annual process as the effort is always
to fill up all the vacancies.
11. 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. 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
9
been offered to the next candidate. Such a relief having been denied
to the next candidate Rajesh Kumar, he raised grievance and
succeeded before the Tribunal. However, he having been selected to
IAS during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, was
no more interested against that vacancy. The writ petition was
disposed of in the year 2010. It was at this stage that the appellant
sought to stake his claim. It was six years down the line as the vacancy
pertains to the year 2004.
12. 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. Rather, his
case is when the second candidate did not join, he should be offered
that vacancy. 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 other wise 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
10
year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years
that have passed.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit
in the present appeals and same are accordingly dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
New Delhi;
February 4, 2026.
11