Holding

The Court held that a candidate cannot be re‑allocated to an ‘insider’ vacancy after a long lapse, as cadre allocation must be final and allowing such changes would render the process fluid.

Summary

The appellant, Rupesh Kumar Meena, an IPS officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre selected in the 2004 Combined Civil Services Examination (ST category), claimed entitlement to the ‘insider’ vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre after the two candidates senior to him in the merit list declined the post. He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed; the decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court and a review petition was also rejected. The question before the Supreme Court was whether, after more than two decades, the appellant could be re‑allocated to the Rajasthan cadre on the basis of the unfilled vacancy. The Court held that allowing such a re‑allocation would make the cadre‑allocation process fluid, undermine finality, and there was no evidence that the vacancy remained vacant. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate lower in the merit list can be offered an ‘insider’ vacancy when senior candidates have declined it after a long lapse.
Whether the vacancy created in 2004 can be considered still vacant and available for allocation after more than twenty years.
Whether the principle of finality in cadre allocation precludes re‑allocation of an officer to a different state cadre in such circumstances.

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant herein should 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. of cadre – 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 OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed – The High

Subjects

Service LawCadreVacancyJoining of cadreInsider vacancySelectionAppointmentCombined Civil Services ExaminationTamil Nadu CadreRajasthan cadreEntitlementProcess of allocation

Judgment

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 362 : 2026 INSC 119

Rupesh Kumar Meena
v.
Union of India & Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 11302-11303 of 2016)
04 February 2026
[Rajesh Bindal* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant herein should 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.

Headnotes†
Service Law – Joining of cadre – 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 OA
before the Tribunal, which was dismissed – The High Court
upheld the same – Review Application was also dismissed –
Correctness:
Held: 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 – The first two candidates chose not to join the
Rajasthan cadre – By this time, six years had lapsed for the 2004
selection – The appellant who was third in the merit list claimed
entitlement to be offered the ‘insider’ vacancy – Rather, his case
is when the second candidate did not join, he should be offered
that vacancy – 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

* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 363

Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

other State – This may also have effect on appointment against
any ‘insider’ vacancy – Finality has to be attached to the process
of selection – No material has been produced to show that the
aforesaid ‘insider’ vacancy for the year 2004 was still lying vacant
for the period of more than 20 years that have passed – No merit
found in appeals and same are dismissed. [Paras 6, 9, 12, 13]

List of Keywords
Service Law; Cadre; Vacancy; Joining of cadre; Insider vacancy;
Selection; Appointment; Combined Civil Services Examination;
Tamil Nadu Cadre; Rajasthan cadre; Entitlement; Process of
allocation.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
11302-11303 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2011 and 21.10.2011
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP No. 6215 of 2011
and RP No. 612 of 2011, respectively

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Dr. Sumit Sharma, Ms. Manishi Raj, Abhishek
Sharma, S. K. Verma.
Adv. for the Respondent(s):
Vinayak Sharma, Ms. Alka Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Mrs. Priya Puri.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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

1 Dated 26.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2011 and 21.10.2011 in Review Petition No.612 of 2011
364 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court2. Vide the order dated 26.08.2011, the High Court upheld the
order3 passed by the Tribunal,4 by which the application5 filed by 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 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
petition6 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 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
6 Writ Petition No.5221 of 2008
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 365

Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

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.
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 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

7 O.A. No.2326 of 2010
366 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 367

Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

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 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,
368 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 369

Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Others

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 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.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan