New Delhi, Feb 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea of a 2004 batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre seeking allocation to an “insider” vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre for the same selection year, holding that such belated claims cannot be entertained as they would unsettle the finality of cadre allocation.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the appellant, Rupesh Kumar Meena, had raised his claim only in 2010, six years after the 2004 selection, and that entertaining the plea after more than two decades would render the cadre allocation process fluid indefinitely.
“In our view, such a process cannot be adopted. It will result in the process of allocation or change of cadres being fluid for all times to come. Finality has to be attached to the process of selection,” the Court held, noting that no material had been produced to show that the Rajasthan insider vacancy for the 2004 batch had remained vacant for over 20 years.
The Court noted that one Rishikesh Meena had qualified for the IPS in the 2004 examination but did not join the 2004 batch, as he was already serving as a 2003 batch IPS officer. He also declined the insider vacancy offered to him in Rajasthan. The next candidate in the merit list, Rajesh Kumar, sought allocation to the Rajasthan insider vacancy and was granted relief by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The union of India challenged the CAT’s order before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Rajesh Kumar was selected to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and joined the IAS, rendering his claim to the IPS insider vacancy infructuous.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition on September 14, 2010, clarifying that the Tribunal’s order would not be treated as a precedent and leaving the question of law open.
Rupesh Kumar Meena, who was third in the merit list for the Rajasthan insider vacancy, raised his claim thereafter, contending that since both candidates senior to him had not joined against the insider vacancy for the 2004 batch, he was entitled to allocation to the Rajasthan cadre.
The CAT rejected his plea, a decision that was upheld by the Delhi High Court, including the dismissal of his review petition.
Before the Supreme Court, Meena argued that he was not seeking a change of cadre but only a correction, claiming a legal right to the Rajasthan insider vacancy once his seniors declined.
He further submitted that there was no delay on his part, as the position became clear only in 2010.
The union of India opposed the appeal, submitting that once a candidate is allocated to a cadre, including against an insider vacancy, the vacancy stands consumed.
It was further contended that allowing such claims years later would disrupt the settled cadre allocation system and trigger a chain of similar claims.
The Supreme Court noted that Meena had been serving in the Tamil Nadu cadre for over two decades and that more than 20 subsequent civil services selections had taken place since 2004.
The Court held that permitting a claim at this stage would disturb the finality of the selection process and potentially affect other cadre allocations.
Finding no merit in the appeals and noting the absence of any material to show that the Rajasthan insider vacancy of the 2004 batch had remained unfilled for all these years, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
SC rejects 2004 batch IPS officer’s claim for Rajasthan cadre insider vacancy
