The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by a Tamil Nadu cadre Indian Police Service officer who sought allocation to an insider vacancy of the Rajasthan cadre arising from the civil services selection of the year 2004. The Court held that such a claim, raised several years after the original cadre allocation process had been completed, could not be entertained as it would disturb the finality and stability of the cadre allocation system governing the All India Services.
The case arose from a claim made by the appellant, who contended that he was entitled to be allocated to the Rajasthan cadre against an insider vacancy for the year 2004 after two candidates senior to him in merit declined to take up that vacancy. The appellant argued that since the senior candidates did not ultimately join the Indian Police Service against the insider vacancy, he had a right to be considered for allocation to that post. He maintained that his request was not for a change of cadre but merely a correction of the original allocation.
The factual background of the dispute showed that one candidate who qualified for the Indian Police Service examination of 2004 was already serving as an IPS officer of an earlier batch and therefore did not join the 2004 batch or accept the insider vacancy in Rajasthan. The next candidate in the merit list sought allocation to the Rajasthan insider vacancy and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his application and directed that he be allocated to that vacancy. However, during the pendency of the challenge to that order before the High Court, the said candidate was selected to the Indian Administrative Service and joined that service, rendering his claim to the IPS vacancy academic. The High Court disposed of the matter by recording that the Tribunal’s order would not be treated as a precedent and left the legal issue open.
It was in this context that the appellant, who was next in the order of merit, raised his claim for allocation to the Rajasthan cadre. He approached the Tribunal contending that the refusal or non-joining by both senior candidates entitled him to be considered for the insider vacancy of the same year. The Tribunal rejected this plea, holding that a candidate does not acquire an automatic or vested right to claim an insider vacancy merely because a senior candidate does not join. The Tribunal observed that cadre allocation, once completed, cannot be reopened on such grounds.
The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning and dismissed the petition. A subsequent review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these decisions, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant reiterated that his claim was justified because the insider vacancy had allegedly remained unfilled due to the non-joining of senior candidates. He contended that there was no undue delay on his part, as the situation became clear only after the senior candidate’s claim became infructuous. He argued that the authorities were duty-bound to allocate the insider vacancy to the next eligible candidate in the merit list.
The Union of India opposed the appeal and submitted that once a cadre is allocated to a candidate, the vacancy stands consumed and the allocation process attains finality. It was argued that permitting claims of this nature after a long lapse of time would unsettle the cadre allocation system and potentially trigger a chain reaction of similar claims by other officers. The Union maintained that the rules governing cadre allocation do not create a right in favour of a candidate to claim an insider vacancy simply because a senior candidate does not join.
The Supreme Court examined the submissions and noted that the selection process in question related to the year 2004 and that the appellant had raised his claim several years later. The Court observed that the appellant had been serving in the Tamil Nadu cadre for more than two decades and that numerous civil services selections had taken place in the intervening period. The Court emphasised that reopening cadre allocation after such a long time would make the process indefinitely fluid and undermine the certainty and finality essential to administrative functioning.
The Court further noted that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the insider vacancy for the Rajasthan cadre pertaining to the 2004 selection had in fact remained vacant for the extended period claimed by the appellant. In the absence of such evidence, the Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court.
The Supreme Court underscored that cadre allocation in the All India Services must reach a point of finality and cannot be kept open to challenge indefinitely. It observed that allowing belated claims based solely on the non-joining of senior candidates would disrupt not only the cadre allocation of the appellant but could also affect the allocation and service conditions of other officers. The Court stressed that administrative stability and certainty are critical to the effective functioning of the All India Services.
In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a candidate does not acquire a legal right to claim allocation to an insider vacancy merely because a senior candidate does not accept or join the post. The Court held that once a lawful allocation has been made and acted upon, and the officer has served in the allotted cadre for a considerable period, such claims cannot be entertained. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court were upheld.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.