Rupesh Kumar Meena vs Union Of India

2026 INSC 119 REPORTABLE

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)

JUDGMENT

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.

He filed the present appeals challenging the orders1 passed by the

High Court2. Vide the order dated 26.08.2011, the High Court upheld

the order3 passed by the Tribunal, 4 by which the application 5 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

petition 6 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

the same. He filed OA7 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