Finality Has To Be Attached To Process Of Selection: Supreme Court Dismisses IPS Officer’s Appeal For Change Of Cadre
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by an IPS Officer of Tamil Nadu Cadre, challenging the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, upholding the dismissal of his application.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court
While dismissing an appeal of an IPS Officer seeking a change of cadre after 20 years, the Supreme Court has held that finality has to be attached to the process of selection. The Apex Court held that the shifting of the Officer from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan may also have an effect on appointment against any ‘insider’ vacancy.
The appellant, an IPS Officer of Tamil Nadu Cadre, was selected against a vacancy meant for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. He filed the appeals challenging the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, upholding the orders of the Tribunal by which his application was dismissed.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “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 year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years that have passed.”
Factual Background
The case as presented by the appellant was that one Rishikesh Meena appeared in the 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 the West Bengal cadre. He was even offered an ‘insider’ vacancy of IPS cadre in the State of Rajasthan; however, he did not accept the same as well. 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 for the State of Rajasthan, he should have been offered the same. His claim was rejected by the Union of India and he was originally allocated to Orissa Cadre.
The appellant/Rupesh Kumar Meena was third in the merit list for an insider vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre in the batch of 2004 examination. As the first two candidates chose not to join the Rajasthan cadre, offered on the basis of ‘insider’ vacancy, the appellant staked his claim to be considered for appointment against the same. He filed an original application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. The High Court upheld the same, and the review application was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the selection pertained to the year 2004. The appellant had already been 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”, it added.
The Bench noted 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. His case was that if the second candidate did not join, he should be offered that vacancy. As per the Bech, such a process couldnot be adopted, as it would result in the process of allocation or change of cadres fluid for all times to come.
The Bench also noted that no material was produced to show that the ‘insider’ vacancy for the year 2004 was still lying vacant for the period of more than 20 years that had passed. Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 119)