Tribunal declined merits adjudication on cadre allocation issues pending before the High Court.

The applicant, Rahul V.C., an Indian Forest Service officer from Kerala, challenged Notification F. No. 22012/06/2012-IFS-II dated 03.04.2019, by which respondent No. 6, Shri Vinodkumar D.K., was re-allotted from the Manipur–Tripura Cadre to the Kerala Cadre as an insider candidate.

The applicant claimed that he was the more meritorious Kerala candidate in the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2008, having secured Rank 7, whereas respondent No. 6 had secured Rank 33, and that he was entitled to the Kerala Cadre against the insider vacancy.

The applicant relied upon the Tribunal’s earlier decision in O.A. No. 4413/2011 dated 30.08.2018, which had directed the respondents to identify the vacancy that ought to have been filled by an insider candidate and to undertake consequential cadre-allocation steps.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal noted that the nature and identification of the Kerala insider vacancy, and the consequential cadre allocation, were connected with W.P. (C) No. 2127/2023, Arun R.S. v. Union of India & Ors., pending before the Delhi High Court, in which the applicant was a party as respondent No. 22.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to challenge the re-allotment of respondent No. 6 from the Manipur–Tripura Cadre to the Kerala Cadre under the notification dated 03.04.2019?

2. Whether the Kerala insider vacancy for the 2008 IFS examination was a General-category vacancy or an OBC-category vacancy, and whether the respondents correctly implemented the directions in O.A. No. 4413/2011 dated 30.08.2018?

3. Whether the applicant, on the basis of his higher merit, home-State status, or claimed OBC entitlement, had a legal right to allocation to the Kerala Cadre?

4. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate these questions when substantially connected issues were pending before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 2127/2023?

Cadre allocation in an All India Service is an incidence of service and not a matter of right; a selected candidate has a right to consideration for appointment and cadre allocation in accordance with the applicable policy, but no right to allocation to a particular cadre or home State.

This principle was drawn from Rajiv Yadav v. Union of India and reaffirmed in Union of India v. Ms. A. Shainamol, Civil Appeal Nos. 11480–11481 of 2018, decided on 22.10.2021.

Union of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh, W.P. (C) No. 77/2015, decided on 09.01.2026, recognised the candidate’s right to fair and equitable treatment under Articles 14 and 16(1), but not to a particular cadre.

Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11302–11303 of 2016, 2026 INSC 119, held that cadre allocation cannot remain fluid indefinitely and that finality must attach to the selection and allocation process.

The Tribunal was also guided by the specific directions in O.A. No. 4413/2011, requiring identification of the appropriate insider vacancy and consequential action in accordance with law.

The Tribunal recognised that the applicant’s claim depended primarily on determining whether the Kerala vacancy was earmarked for a General insider or an OBC insider and whether the respondents had properly implemented O.A. No. 4413/2011.

Although the applicant relied on his higher merit and alleged inconsistency in the respondents’ position, the Tribunal noted that he had not been declared an OBC candidate pursuant to the order dated 30.08.2010 and therefore could not, on that basis alone, claim an OBC insider vacancy.

The general principles governing cadre allocation also did not confer an independent right upon him to obtain the Kerala Cadre merely because it was his home State or because he was more meritorious.

However, the Tribunal did not finally determine the disputed vacancy classification or the legality of respondent No. 6’s re-allotment.

Those questions were substantially connected with the pending writ proceedings before the Delhi High Court, in which the applicant was already a party.

The Tribunal held that adjudicating the issues on merits could produce a cascading or conflicting effect on the High Court proceedings.

It therefore refrained from examining the merits and left all factual and legal contentions open for determination by the appropriate forum.

The applicant was granted liberty to pursue his rights and contentions before the appropriate forum, including the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 2127/2023.

It was clarified that the order would not prejudice either party and that all questions of law and fact remained open for consideration in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.