Rajendra Singh Bora vs. Union Of India

2026 INSC 404
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._________OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29304 of 2018)

RAJENDRA SINGH BORA ...APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. Rajendra Singh Bora - the employee challenges a decision
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, passed in Writ A
No. 20783 of 2013 on 11.04.2018 whereby he had requested the
Signature Not Verified
Court to issue a mandamus to the States of Uttar Pradesh and
Digitally signed by
SOURAV PAL
Date: 2026.04.22
16:08:14 IST
Reason:
Uttaranchal, thereby effecting his change of cadre from Uttar
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 1 - of 10

Pradesh to Uttarakhand, on account of the fact that when he
appeared for the Combined Lower Subordinate Service
Examinations in 1995, he had opted for ‘ hill region ’ posting,
which was rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a narrow
compass. The appellant appeared for and cleared the competitive
exam mentioned above, conducted by the Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow, with
what could be considered good marks i.e., 672 in total out of 900.
The mark-sheet reflecting the said result as obtained is Annexure-
P-3. While opting for, Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools, his
preference was the ‘ hill area of Uttar Pradesh ’. Despite such a
situation, the appellant was not appointed for the reason that he
only submitted his B.Ed (Bachelor of Education marksheet) at
the time of interview and not with the application form.
Naturally, those below him in the merit list were appointed.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court by
way of Writ Petition No. 16613 of 1997 which came to be
allowed on 13.02.2004. The reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge in allowing this petition was that Condition No. 7
of the Advertisement, pursuant to which the appellant applied for
the position stated that candidates applying for the said position
should annex the B.Ed marksheets, but it did not say that those
applications which does not annex the same, will be rejected.
Moreover, it was noted that the production of marksheets at the
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 2 - of 10

time of interview is an admitted fact. Given the remote area from
where the appellant hailed, the Court observed that a hyper-
technical view should not be adopted and as such allowed the
appellant to be appointed from the same date as the other
candidates, along with consequential benefits except for arrears
and salary.
1
4. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against these findings
but the same came to be dismissed by order dated 07.10.2009. He
was finally appointed by the Director (Basic) Uttar Pradesh,
Allahabad, to the position of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools
th th
notionally from 11 June 1997. He joined the said service on 26
July 2011 in Kashi Ram Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. He submitted
th
representations to the above said Authorities on 20 May 2012,
th th
19 July 2012 and 13 October 2012 respectively requesting that
he be granted the ‘ hill cadre ’ as originally requested. A further
ground for making such an application was that his son was
cognitively disabled. The record does not reveal the respondent-
State of Uttar Pradesh to have responded to the representations
made by the appellant.
5. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition, in which
the order impugned before us, was passed, came to be filed. The
High Court dismissed the petition, observing that once the

1
Special Appeal No. 781 of 2004
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 3 - of 10

appellant was allotted the Uttar Pradesh Service, no question
arose about the transfer to Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. We may record at the outset that we do not
agree with the determination made by the High Court. The
reasoning in law, shall come forth in the following paragraphs.
7. First , the distinction between a transfer and a change in
cadre is plain and does not admit confusion. The two operate in
entirely different domains and carry different legal and
administrative consequences. A transfer refers to a change in the
place of posting of an employee within the same cadre or service.
The individual continues to belong to the same service structure,
governed by the same rules, with no impact on seniority or
substantive status. It is an incident of service, routinely exercised
by the administration for functional, administrative, or public
interest considerations. In essence, only the location or
assignment changes, not the identity of service to which the
employee belongs. A change in cadre, by contrast, involves a
shift from one cadre to another and, therefore, alters the very
framework within which the employee’s service is regulated. It
is not a mere relocation but a structural change that may affect
seniority, promotional avenues, and applicable service
conditions. Such a change is exceptional in nature and typically
requires specific statutory authority or higher-level approval,
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 4 - of 10

given its far-reaching implications. The difference, therefore, is
clear and substantive. A transfer is a matter of administrative
convenience within the same service, whereas a change in cadre
entails a reconfiguration of the employee’s service identity itself.
8. Second , the exam for which the appellant appeared dated
prior to the reorganization of the States, and while giving his
preference, he had asked for the ‘ hill cadre ’. There is no reason
forthcoming on record to show that if his appointment after the
exam had not run into the roadblocks which it did, he would have
been appointed to the hill cadre, and which, with the passage of
time, would have translated into appointments with the State of
2
Uttarakhand. The Department of Personnel and Training
explains the cadre allocation process as follows:
“ Criteria of Allocation
The broad principle of allocation of State cadre
employees which inter alia include allocation first by
option, followed by domicile (Home District) and
lastly by inclusion of junior most personnel in the
reverse order of seniority. If the number of posts
allocated to a successor States are more than the total
number of optees and domicile (Home District), in
order to fill up the balance posts, the employees lower
down in the seniority position in the cadre are
considere d for allocation even against their options.
Option once exercised by the employees is not
reversible. Keeping in view the resentment expressed
by the employees who were allocated on domicile
and juniority basis against their willingness, several
exceptions were made to the guidelines to facilitate

2
DOPT
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 5 - of 10

C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 6 - of 10

* family include spouse, dependent children and
dependent parents.

(emphasis supplied)”


9. This above extract itself makes clear that the cadre
allocation process is governed by three criteria: option, domicile
and inclusion of junior most personnel in reverse order of
seniority. The present appellant had been granted notional
th
appointment from 11 June 1997 and has also submitted, in
various representations, that he is a resident of present-day
Uttarakhand. On both these counts the request for reallocation
of cadre ought to have been acceded to, if at all it can be called
as such.
10. Third, even if both these reasons are kept aside, there is yet
another reason that would justify the appellant being sent to the
Uttarakhand State Services. His son has been declared to be
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 7 - of 10

cognitively challenged with little or no scope for
improvement/betterment in his condition. The Medical
Certificate testifying such a position has been placed on record.
The above extracted exceptions to the allocation policy have an
exception for persons with ‘ mental illness ’ which does include
the family members also. When such an exception applies, the
allocation to be made is as per the option exercised by the
employee. On this count also, the appellant’s appointment in the
hill cadre taken from the original date, should have been
translated into an appointment with the successor State.
11. On a cumulative assessment of the above factors, the
appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The
impugned judgment with particulars in paragraph 1 stands set
aside. The Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to
facilitate forthwith the reallocation of the appellant to the State
of Uttarakhand. While doing so, his seniority and all relevant
benefits shall be protected. A copy of this judgment also be sent to Chief
Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, for necessary follow up action.
12. Before parting with the matter, we must record that a deep
sense of anguish troubled us in dealing with this matter. The
appellant became eligible to be appointed in the year 1997 but
was only actually appointed in 2011, and even today in 2026 he
continues to fight for his rights. Once the High Court had, in 2004
cleared the way for his appointment, he should have at least been
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 8 - of 10

appointed, subject to the outcome of the appeal, if any, that would
have been filed by the State. That did not happen. The appeal was
dismissed in 2009 yet formal appointment came only in 2011.
From 2011 onwards, he is being made to run from pillar to post
to fructify the needs/preferability of being posted in his home
State. This is in no way, shape or form, anything other than
apathy on part of the State. This becomes clearer if the issue is
looked at in terms of absolute numbers. The person was
appointed with effect from June 1997 and today we are in April
of 2026. Only now will he get something that he had opted for
right from the start. Even if we exclude the initial few years till
his appointment was confirmed by the High Court in the first writ
petition which was in February 2004, even from that point
onwards 22 years have passed. The entire time that being close
to family would have been a great sense of support in raising his
son, he has spent away from family at least since 2011. In the
attending facts and circumstances as discussed above, we award
cost to the appellant, to be paid by the respondent State of Uttar
Pradesh, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).
The cost be deposited into the bank account of the appellant
within four weeks. Counsel for the appellant shall furnish to the
counsel for the respondent State, the necessary details within one
week.
13. It is difficult to think that there are not many other cases
where on account of long pendency of service dispute the party
C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 9 - of 10

in question would be approaching superannuation as the case
may also be here. As such, it is requested that the learned Chief
Justice of the High Court, ascertain the number of such cases long
pending and endeavour to have them decided expeditiously by
possibly by distributing them across benches which would ensure
that they are taken up and decided within a comparatively shorter
span of time.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


…………………………….………..……..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



……………………………………..……….J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi
April 22, 2026


C.A.No…of 2026 @ SLP © No. 29304 of 2018 Page - 10 - of 10