Holding

Deputation is not a source of recruitment under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, so Rule 14 cannot be used to grant seniority from the CRPF appointment; only the five years of service as a deputationist in Punjab Police may be given weightage.

Summary

Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF on compassionate grounds in 1989 and later deputed to the Punjab Police as a Superintendent in 1993, retaining her lien in the CRPF until her absorption as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Punjab Police in 1998. The appellants, officers of the Punjab Police Service, challenged the State Government's order granting her seniority from the 1989 CRPF appointment, arguing that deputation is not a source of recruitment under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, and that the order violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The State contended that deputation fell within the definition of direct appointment and that Rule 14 could be invoked to relax the rules and grant seniority. The Supreme Court examined the Rules, held that deputation is akin to transfer and not a source of recruitment, and that Rule 14 cannot be applied where no rule provides for recruitment by deputation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, granting weightage only for the five years of service as a deputationist in Punjab Police, but rejecting seniority from the 1989 CRPF appointment.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 can be invoked to grant seniority to a deputationist when the Rules do not provide for such recruitment.
Whether deputation constitutes a source of recruitment under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959.
Whether granting seniority from the date of the original CRPF appointment violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
Whether service rendered in the CRPF can be given weightage for inter se seniority in the Punjab Police Service.
Whether the appointment of Ms. Amrit Brar in the CRPF was a compassionate appointment or an exceptional appointment.

Subjects

Punjab Police Service RulesdeputationseniorityRule 14Article 14Article 16(1)compassionate appointmentinter se seniorityservice lawabsorption

Judgment

~
I

ARUN KUMAR AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 3, 2007 ·

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Service law:

Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959:
c
Rules 2(b) and 14-Appointment-Absorption of deputationist in
cadre-Correctness of-Held-On strict interpretation ofthe Rules, deputation
is not a source of recruitment, but it could be in exceptional cases-In such
cases benefit of absorption can not be faulted if it is genuine exercise.

Rules 2(b), 13 and 14-Assistant Commandant in CRPF on deputation D
to Punjab Police-Regularization of her service in Punjab Police as Deputy
S. P. from date when she was appointed in CRPF, and not from date when
she was appointed as deputationist-Correctness of-Held-Service Rules
governing CRPF and Punjab Police Service were different, and even
functionally, two cadres were different; apart from policing, officer of Punjab E
Police Service had to investigate crime and have knowledge of CrPC, /PC
etc., which was not required in CRPF-Further, her absorption concerned
inter se seniority in post of Deputy S. P. since that seniority ultimately,
countedfor promotion to next higher cadre-In absence ofrules, no weightage
could be given to services rendered by her in CRPF, even as exceptional case,
especially as deputation was not a source of recruitment in Punjab Police- F
Rule 14 found inapplicable as it contemplated existence of a rule of
recruitment, and as there was no rule providing for deputation as source of
recruitment, government could not relax a non existent rule-However, due
weightage ordered to be given for her experience as Deputy S. P. in Punjab
Police Service.
G
Appointment-Compassionate grounds-JPS officer in Punjab Police ,
Service killed by terrorists-His sister appointed in Central Reserve Police
Force keeping in view that it was relatively safer than Punjab Police Servfce
and as she was only child of her old parents, she had to be protected-
707 II
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.
+
A Held-Her appointment was not compassionate but exceptional.
Seniority-lnter-se-Fixation of-Held-Concept of equality has to be
applied-Rights of those who have been in service and who are also entitled
to seniority and promotion in cadre, have to kept in mind-Constitution of
India, 1950-Artic/es 14 and 16(1)
B
Deputation-Nature of-Held-It equates with transfer, not with direct
appointment.

Respondent no. 4 is sister of an IPS officer in the Punjab Police Service
who was killed by terrorists. On account of that incident she was appointed
C on 9.6.1989 as Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF). This assignment was given to her as it was relatively safer than
Punjab Police Service. Her appointment was governed by CRPF Rules. On
completion of her probation, she was appointed on deputation to the post of
Superintendent of Police in Punjab Police on 16-17.8.1993. She retained her
D lien as Assistant Commandant in CRPF till 11.9.1998 when she was absorbed
as DSP in Punjab Police. She was allowed all benefits including pay and
seniority from 9.6.1989. In between, she was promoted to the post of Deputy
Commandant in CRPF in March, 1995.

The appellants are officers of Punjab Police Service. They filed writ
E petition challenging absorption of respondent no. 4, but same were dismissed.
Hence the present appeal.

Appellants contended that (i) absorption of respondent no. 4 in Punjab
Police was without authority of law and in violation of their fundamental rights
under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950
F particularly in view of the Government conferring the benefit of seniority on
her with effect from 9.6.1989; (ii) she was not entitled to the double benefit of
appointment in CRPF on compassionate grounds and absorption in Punjab
Police Service again on compassionate grounds; (iii) deputation is not a source
ofrecruitment under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959; (iv) CRPF in
its activities is confined to law and order whereas Punjab Police functions
G require crime detection, in addition to policing; respondent no. 4 had not
undergone that required training; (v) the State Government has not maintained
ACRs ofrespondent no. 4 between 16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998 under the 1959
Rules, as she had a lien to a post in CRPF; her entire service record during
the above period was governed by the CRPF Rules.
H
ARUN KUMAR v. U.O.l. 709

~
Respondent-State Government contended that (i) deputationist comes A
within the definition ofdirect appointment under Rule 2(b) read with Rule 13
of 1959, and the State was entitled to apply the rule of relaxation contemplated
in Rule 14; (ii) on absorption of respondent no. 4 in 1998 as a Deputy S. P. in
Punjab Police, she was entitled to the benefit of her experience in CRPF with
effect from 9.6.1989.
B
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed rightly on compassionate
, grounds as an Assistant Commandant in CRPF on 9.6.1989. The State
Government was right in initially appoi~ting her as an Assistant Command1*nt
in CRPF, since in 1989 terrorism was at its peak in the State and that ~er c
posting as an Assistant Commandant was relatively safer than her posting in
Punjab Police. She was the only child of her old parents. She had to be,
therefore, protected. However, that could not make her appointment'.a
compassionate appointment It was an exceptional appointment. There cann(>t
be a second opinion on this count. [Para 8) [715-B-C) D
2.1. After the situation improved, she was taken on deputation in Punjab
....., Police. This was in 1993. (Para 8) [715-C-D]

2.2. Although, the said 1959 Rules do not provide for such appointment
as a deputationist in the normal cadre, the Government, in exceptional cases, E
can appoint deputationists in Punjab Police Service. This is one such case.
There is no infirmity in the action of the State Government in appointing Ms•.
Amri. Brar as a deputationist in Punjab Police Service. She is entitled to.
those benefits under the above circumstances. [Para 8) (715-D-E]

2.3. Further, Ms. Amrit Brar stood absorbed in Punjab Police Service · F
as Deputy S. P. on 11.9.1998. Even her absorption has been made on giving
relaxation, as indicated above. This was by way of one time exercise in an
exceptional case. [Para 8) [715-E-F)

2.4. Strictly on interpretation of the said 1959 Rules, there is no scope ·
for opening of a third mode of recruitment Deputation is not the source of _Q
recruitment under the said 1959 Rules. It is only as an exceptional case that
respondent no. 4 was given the benefit of absorption in Punjab Police Service
-/
as Deputy S. P. and there is no fault with that exercise.. It is the genuine
exercise. [Para 12) [720-G-H; 721-A]
H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A 3.1 However, when her services are regularized by the State not from
16/17.8.1993, when she stood appointed as a deputationist, but from 9.6.1989,
when she was appointed as Assistant Commandant in CRPF, then infirmity
in the action of the State Government crept in. [Para 12] [721-A-B]

3.2. CRPF functions cannot be compared with Punjab Police Service.
B Apart from policing, an officer of Punjab Police Service has to do the work.of
investigation of crime detection, which is not within the purview of CRPF. A
Deputy S. P. in CRPF need not have the knowledge of CrPC, IPC etc., which
an officer in Punjab Police Service needs to possess. The Service Rules
governing CRPF are different from the Service Rules which governed Punjab ,_
Police Service. Therefore, even functionally, the two cadres are different. In
C fact, respondent no. 4, has not undergone training as contemplated under
Punjab Police Service Rules. [Para 12] [721-B-C)

4.1. The present case is concerned with the rights of the appellants. It
concerns the inter se seniority in the said post of Deputy S. P. since that
D seniority ultimately counts for promotion to the next higher cadre. The post
of Deputy S. P. is a feeder post in that sense and when the post is a feeder
post, the inter se seniority has the role to play. In the circumsta'!ces, if
deputation is not the source of recruitment, then even in exceptional cases of
this nature, weightage cannot be given, in the absence of the rules, to the
-services rendered by~· Amrit Brar in CRPF. [Para 12) (721-D-F]
E 4.2. When inter se seniority is to be fixed the concept of equality has to
be kept in mind. Equality before law and equal protection oflaw are the basic
postulates of Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The rights
of the appellants, who have been in service and who are also entitled to
seniority and promotion in the cadre, have to be kept in mind. [Para 9]
F
5.1. Deputation equates with transfer, but not with direct appointment.
To this extent, there is infirmity in the impugned judgment.
[Para 11] [720-F]

K. Madhavan and Anr. v. U.O.l. and Ors., [1987) 4 SCC 566, referred
G to.
5.2. Rule 14 talks ofrelaxation. However, Rule 14 is not applicable to
the rules which do not provide for recruitmen~ through deputation. Rule 14 .
would have applied ifthe said 1959 Rules had a third source of recruitment,
namely, deputation. There is no such third source of recruitment. Hence, Rule
H 14 has no application. Rule 14 refers to relaxation of rules. Rule 14
ARUN KUMAR v. U.O.I. [KAPADIA, J.] 711

. ..J
contemplates existence of a rule of recruitment. If there is no such rule A
providing for third source of recruitment, the Government cannot relax a n()n
existent rule. Therefore, the High Court had erred in treating deputation as
a third source of recruitment. [Para 12) [721-F-G)
t·
6. Ms. Amrit Brar has put in 5 years service as a deputationist in Punja~
Police Service between 16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998. She is certainly entitled B
to the weightage for the services rendered by her during these 5 years.
[Para 12} {722-A}

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4325 of2006.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2006 of the High Court c
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 11548 of 1996.

Gunninder Singh, Ajay Pal, Nikhil Jain, Gangadeep Sharma and D.
Mahesh Babu for the Appellants.

P.S. Patwalia, Jawahar Lal Gupta and Raju Ramachandran, Aman Preet D
Singh Rahi, Indra Sawhney, Sushma Suri, Sanjay Jain, Aron K. Sinha and S.
Janani for the Respondents.
,,;

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. 1. A short question which arises for detennination in this E
civil appeal is whether the State Government could have invoked Rule 14 of
the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 (dealing with the power of relaxation)
when there wa~ no provision in the said Rules for absorption ofDeputationists
on pennanent basis from Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF") in Punjab
Police Service. p,
2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows .
..J

3. Shri Avinder Singh Brar, IPS was killed by the terrorists. He was an
officer in the Punjab Police Service. On account of the above inciden~ his
sister, Ms. Amrit Brar-respondent no. 4, stood appointed on 9.6.1989 as
Assistant Commandant in CRPF on probation for two years. She was appointed
G
in CRPF under above tragic circumstances. She was the only child of her
parents. She was appointed in CRPF as her assignment was relatively safer
in CRPF than in Punjab Police Service. These facts are important since they
show that the appointment of respondent no. 4 was not compassionate but
as an exception. Her appointment was to be governed by CRPF Rules. She H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A completed here probation on completion of two years. On 16/17.8.1993, Ms.
Amrit Brar was appointed on deputation to the post of Superintendent of
Police (SP) in Punjab Police. She retained her lien as Assistant Commandant
in CRPF till 11.9.1998 when she was absorbed as DSP in Punjab Police. She
was allowed all benefits including pay and seniority from 9.6.1989. In between,
B Ms. Amrit Brar was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in CRPF
r-
in March, 1995. 1

4. The appellants herein are officers of Punjab Police Service. Some of
the appellants are recipients of the President's medal for gallantry for having
fought terrorism in the State of Punjab. The appellants challenged the orders
G of the State Government in the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting
absorption to Ms. Amrit Brar, particularly on the ground that the Punjab
Police SerVice Rules did not contemplate absorption of a deputationist from
, CRPF. The appellants challenged the absorption on the grounds that Ms.
Amrit Brar was granted benefit of compassionate appointment as Assistant
Commandant in CRPF in 1989 and, therefore, she was not entitled to double
D benefit of compassionate absorption in 1998 and that too from 9.6.1989. The
appellants'. main grievance before the Hizh Court was that giving the benefit
of seniority to Ms. Amrit Brar from 9.6.1989 would make her senior to almost
ten other officers. According to the appellants, the consequences of seniority
being given to Ms. Amrit Brar would mean supersession of the appellants.
E According to the appellants, Ms. Amrit Brar stood appointed to Class I post
in the CRPF as Assistant Commandant on compassionate ground and, therefore,
there was no cause for second exercise of this power by the State Government
after almost nine years. The appellants further submitted before the High
Court that there were many officers on deputation with Punjab Police Service
from various Para Military Forces, including CRPF, most of whom had come
F on deputation even prior to Ms. Amrit Brar. Appellants further contended
before the High Court that, in fact, the State Government had notified ~njab
Absorption of Officers of Para Military Forces (Group A) Service Rules, 2005
and under the said Rules, the State Government had created ex-cadre posts
for absorption of Para Military Forces officers, who were on deputation with
the State of Punjab and who were to _be absorbed in Punjab Police Service.
G According to the appellants, if the benefit of seniority was to be giveri to Ms.
Amrit Brar from 9.6.1989 then even in the matter of absorption she would
supersede a number of other officers.

5. By the impugned judgment dated 24.1.2006, the High Court dismissed
H CWP No. 11548/96 filed by the appellants herein. One of the main grounds
{ I

ARUN KUMAR v. U.O.I. [KAPADIA, J.) 713
urged by the appellants before the High Court was that regularization of the A
services of Ms. Amrit Brar with effect from 9.6.1989 and absorption of a
deputationist in Punjab )Police Service would amount to creation of a separate
Method of Recruitrrient. According to the appellants, under the said Rules
there were only twoisources of recruitment, 80% is by promotion and 20%
is by direct recruitment. This contention was rejected by the High Court
saying that the word(s}f'direct appointment" in the said Rules would include B
l\ appointment by deputi~ion
'•
and, therefore, Rule 14 was applicable to the
present case. Aggrieve~ by the decision of the High Court, the appellants
I
have come to this Coutt by way of the present civil appeal.

6. On behalf of the appellants, it was urged that the State Government
had violated the appellants' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1)
c
of the Constitution of India by reason of absorption of Ms. Amrit Brar as
Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 9.6.1989. According to the
appellants, Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed on compassionate grounds in CRPF
as an Assistant Commandant and she retained her lien in CRPF till she stood
absorbed in Punjab Police Service on 11.9.1998. According to the appellants, D
Ms. Amrit Brar was even given promotion in CRPF from the post of Assistant
_,, Commandant to the post of Deputy Commandant. According to the appellants
a number of concessions were given to respondent no. 4. Ms. Amrit Brar was
appointed in 1989 as Assistant Commandant in CRPF on compassionate
ground; that her post in Punjab Police was taken out of the purview of Public
Service Commission vide Government's Order dated 13 .10.1997 and that even
E
the rules of competitive examination were relaxed. According to the appellants,
Ms. Amrit Brar was not entitled to the double benefit of appointment in CRPF
on compassionate grounds and absorption in Punjab Police Service again on
compassionate grounds. According to the appellants, deputation is not a
source of recruitment in Punjab Police Service. According to the appellants, F
• .J
the effect of the impugned judgment was to open one more source of
recruitment which is not provided for under Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959
(" 1959 Rules"). According to the appellants, CRPF in its activities is confined
to law and order whereas Punjab Police functions require crime detection, in
addition to policing. Moreover, according to the appellants, Ms. Amrit Brar
had not undergone that required training. According to the appellants, even G
ACRs. were not scrutinized when Ms. Amrit Brar wa.S taken on deputation in
Punjab Police Service on 16/17 .8.1993. According· to the appellants, CRPF
..J personnel are governed by CRPF Rules. They are not governed by the said
Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959. Under the said 1959 Rules, the State
Government has not even maintained ACRs. of Ms. Amrit Brar between .16/ H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998. The reason being that Ms. Amrit Brar had a lien to
a post in CRPF. It is for this reason that Ms. Amrit Brar stood promoted to
the post of Deputy Commandant on the basis of ACRs. given in March, 1995.
Therefore, her entire service record during the above period was governed by
the CRPF Rules and, consequently, her absorption in Punjab Police was
without authority of law and in violation of appellants' fundamental rights
B under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitufon of India, particularly
in view of the Government conferring the benefit of seniority on her with
effect from 9.6.1989.

7. On behalf of the State Government, it was urged that under Punjab
C Police Service Rules, 1959 the Method of Recruitment has been provided.
Under the said 1959 Rules, there are two sources of recruitment. The sources
include direct recruitment. It was urged on behalf of the State Government
that the words 'direct recruitment' in the said 1959 Rules has been defined
to mean appointment by any mode. According to the respondents, a
deputationist would come within the definition of direct appointment under
D Rule 2(b) read with Rule 13. In the circumstances, it was urged on behalf of
the State that once the concept of deputation fell within the meaning of direct
appointment, the State was entitled to apply the rule of relaxation contemplated
in Rule 14. According to the Government, the post was taken out of the
purview of Public Service Commission vide letter dated 13.10.1997. Further,
E Rule 6 which refers to competitive examination stood relaxed and accordingly
on such relaxation, Ms. Amrit Brar was absorbed as a Deputy S.P. in Punjab
Police in 1998 with effect from 9.6.1989, which the State Government was
entitled to do. It was urged on behalf of the State Government that, on her
absorption, Ms. Amrit Brar stood appointed in Punjab Police as a direct
recruit. According to the State Government, Ms. Amrit Brar had worked in
F Punjab Police on deputation from 16/17.8.1993. According to the State
Government, Ms. Amrit Brar who had worked as an Assistant Commandant/
Deputy S.P. in CRPF between 9.6.1989 and 16/17.8.1993 and, consequently,
absorbed in 1998 as a Deputy S.P. in Punjab Police, was entitled to the benefit
of her experience in CRPF with effect from 9.6.1989. It was urged on behalf
G of the State Government, that even in CRPF the designation of Ms. Amrit Brar
was Deputy S.P. and that the nature of the duties of Deputy S.P. in CRPF and
the functions of Deputy S.P. in Punjab Police were identical and, therefore,
the experience and the work put in by Ms. Amrit Brar as Deputy S.P. in CRPF
had to be taken into account while absorbing her in Punjab Police Service.
According to the State Government, on application of Rule 14, Ms. Amrit Brar
H was entitled to the benefit of the past service and accordingly she had been
ARUN KUMAR v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.] 715
given seniority in Punjab Police on and from 9.6.1989, therefore, according to A
the State Government, there was no breach or violation of Article 14 and
Article 16 of the Constitution. '.
i

8. At the outset, we may state that the country owes its gratitude to
the brave officer, Shri Avinder Singh Brar, IPS, who was killed at the hands
of terrorists. The above facts show that Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed rightly B
on compassionate grounds as an Assistant Commandant in CRPF on 9.6.1989.
The State Government was right in initially appointing her as an Assistant
Commandant in CRPF, since in 1989 terrorism was at its peak in the State and
that her posting as an Assistant Commandant was relatively safer than her
posting in Punjab Police. She was the only child of her old parents. She had C
to be, therefore, protected. However, that could not make her appointment a
compassionate appointment. It was an exceptional appointment. There cannot
be a second opinion on this count. After the situation improved, she was
taken on deputation in Punjab Police. This was in 1993. We do not find any
infirmity in the action of the State Government under the above circumstances
in appointing Ms. Amrit Brar as a deputationist even in Punjab Police Service. D
We make it clear that Punjab Police Service Rules provide for two sources of
recruitment. One is by direct recruitment, another is by way of promotion.
Although, the said 1959 Rules do not provide for such appointment as a
deputationist in the normal cadre, the Government, in exceptional cases, can
appoint deputationists in Punjab Police Service. This is one such case. We E
do not find any infirmity in the action of the State Government in appointing
Ms. Amrit Brar as a deputationist in Punjab Police Service. She is entitled to
those benefits under the above circumstances. Further; as state above, Ms.
Amrit Brar stood absorbed in Punjab Police Service as Deputy S.P. on 11.9.1998.
Even her absorption has been made on giving relaxation, as indicated above.
This was by way of one time exercise in an exceptional case. The only F
.J
dispute, therefore, is whether Ms. Amrit Brar was entitled to one more benefit
of seniority with effect from 9.6.1989.

9. Direct appointment as a source of recruitment is different from
Deputation/ Transfer in the method of recruitment. In the present case, the
dispute revolves around inter se dispute in the cadre of DSP, in Punjab Police, G
which is the Feeder Post. If seniority is to be given to Ms. Amrit Brar with
effect from 9.6.1989 then she supersedes the appellants, who have also
contributed in the elimination of terrorism in the State. It is the next higher
post which the appellants and respondent no. 4 aims for. It is the inter se
seniority which gives rise to the dispute between the appellants and the State. H
-j
t
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A When inter se seniority is to be fixed the concept of equality has to be kept ;-

in mind. Equality before law and equal protection of law are the basic postulates
of Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. We have to keep in
mind the rights of the appellants, who have been in service and who are also
entitled to seniority and promotion in the cadre. We quote hereinbelow Rules
2(b), 6, 7, 8, IO, 13 and 14 of Punjab Police Service Rules, l959.
B
''2. Definitions.-In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context,-
JOO{

(b) 'direct appointment' means an appointment made otherwise than
c by promotion of an Inspector.
JOO{

6. Method of recruitment.- (1) Recruitment to the Service shall be
made-
D (i) Eighty per cent by promotion form the rank of Inspector, and
twenty per cent by direct appointment:
Provided that only those Inspectors will be eligible for promotion
who-
(a) in the case of Inspectors (both promoted from subordinate rank
E
and directly recruited) have got six years continuous service
(officiating as well as substantive) in the rank of Inspector; and
(b) in case they are Prosecuting Inspectors, have got eight years'
continuous service (both officiating and substantive) in the rank
of Prosecuting Inspector.
F
(2) Appointments by promotions shall be made by the Government ~
from Inspectors brought on list 'G' which will be a list of officers
considered fit for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police, prepared by Government in consultation with the
Commission. The names in this list prepared at one time shall be
G arranged according to their inter se seniority. This list will be
maintained in two parts: Part I (for officers from the Executive
line) and Part II (for officers from the Prosecution line).

(3) Direct appointment to the Service shall be made on the result of
a competitive examination conducted by the Commission. The
H syllabus and rules relating to the examination will be framed by
ARUN KUMAR v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.] 717
the Government in consultation with the Commission. The A
examination will include a viva voce test Only those candidates
will be interviewed for the viva voce test who obtain not less
than the minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Commission in
the written examination. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab
will be present at the interview and will be er.~itled to put questions B
to the candidate and to express his views to the Commission. A
candidate's position shall be determined by adding the marks
obtained by him in the written examination and in viva voce test.
Provided that other things being equal, preference will be given
to a candidate who has worked for the cause of national
independence or has rendered some outstanding social or public c
service.
7. Qualifications.- (1) No person shall be recruited to the Service by
direct appointment unless-
(i) he is not less than twenty-one years and not more than twenty- D
five years of age on the first of February of the year in which
appointment is to be made;
(il) he produces a certificate of physical fitness as prescribed by rule

- 3.1 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume, Part I;
(fu) he has a minimum height of 5'-7" and normal chest measurement
of33" with expansion of 1-1/2".
(iv) he is a graduate of a recognized university and possesses
E

knowledge of both Hindi and Punjabi upto the Matriculation or
its equivalent standard.

Provided that the upper age limit prescribed in sub-clause (i)
F
shall be thirty years in the case of Scheduled Castes, Schedules
Tribes and Backward Classes;

Provided further that the physical standard prescribed in sub-
clause (iii) shall not be relaxed without special sanction of the G
Government;

(2) No male candidate who has more than one wife living and no
female candidate who has married a person having already a wife
living shall be eligible for appointment to the service;

Provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable in H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A cases where it was incurred before the 8th September, 1954, and
the recruitment is to be made by promotion.
(3) (i) The Government shall notify to the Commission the nuinber of
vacancies to be filled by direct appointment during the year, and
the Commission will proceed to give publidty to the proposed
B appointments and invite applications. If applications are invited
before the results of the University Examinations have been
notified, candidates appearing or who have appeared in the
Bachelor of Arts ot equivalent examination, will be allowed to
submit provisional applications.

c (ii) The applications received wiJI be referred for scrutiny to tlie
Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, who may make such enquiries
as he may think fit and shall thereafter return all tiie·applicatfon
with his remarks, if any, to the Coinmissfon.
(iii) The Commission will scrutinize all;applicatiOns received·and
D admit to the examination mentioned in sub-rule(3) of rufo 6 all
those candidates who are found to be eligible in accordance with
these rules.
(iv) Success in the examination will confer no right on aity
is
candidate to appointment, unless Govemmeiii satisfied, after
E such enquiry as may be considered necessary, thaf tlie candidate
is suitable in all respects for appointment to the ServiCe.

8. Probation of members of Service.

(a) Members of the Service shall be on probatfon for
tWo years,
which shall include the period of training at tlie Police Training
F School, Phillaur, and in the districts and in the case of menf6ers
recruited by promotion the Government may, by a speeialorder
in each case, permit periods of officiating appointment, to the
Service to count towards the period of probation.
(b) The services of a member recruited by direct appomtment may be
G dispensed with by Government on his failing to pass the final
examination at the end of his period of tra~ning, or on his being
reported on, during or at the end of his perfod of probation, as
unfit for appointment.
Provided that the Government may, if it deems fit extend the
H period of probation by not more than one year.
~·
)

ARUN KUMAR v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.] 719
(c) The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab may require any member A
of the service on probation appointed by promotion from the
rank of an Inspector to undergo a special course of training and
to pass the prescribed examination in any subject or subjects,
including a compulsory language in which his qualification may
be defective. Any such probationer failing to pass the examination
prescribed for him or being unfavourably reported on, may be B
reverted to his substantive rank of Inspector.

10. Seniority of members of Service. The seniority of members of the
Service shall be determined by the date of confirmation in the C
service.
Provided that if two or more members are confinned on the same
date.
(i) a member who is appointed to the Service by promotion shall
be senior to a member appointed otherwise. D
(ii) in the case of members who were appointed by direct
appointment, the seniority shall be determined in accordance
with their position in the competitive examination;
(iii) in the case of members who were appointed to the service E
by promotion, the seniority shall be determined in accordance
with the date of their entry in promotion list 'G'.

13. Matters not expressly provided in these rules- In respect of all
matters n.ot specifically mentioned in these rules, the member of the F
Service shall be governed by such general rules as may have been or
may hereafter be framed by the Government under the provisions of
the Constitution of India in this respect.

14. General powers to relax rules.- Where the Government is of the
opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, G
for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of
these rules with respect to any class or category of persons."

10. Heavy reliance has been placed on behalf of the State Government
and on behalf of respondent no. 4 on the judgment of this Court in the case
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A of K. Madhavan and Anr. v. U.0.1. and Ors., reported in [1987] 4 SCC 566. •
In that case the petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, were directly recruited as
DSP in CBI on,6.7.1963 and 10.8.1963 respectively. O.P. Sharma, respondent
no. 5, who was appointed as DSP on 13.7.1962 in Rajasthan·State Police, was
sent on deputation to CBI as DSP on l.7.1967. At that time, this Court found
B that majority of officers in CBI were deputationists. O.P. Sharma was confmned
as DSP in Rajasthan Police Service on 1.12.1964. Madhavan and Sen were
confirmed as DSP in CBI on 30.3.1967. In the seniority list published by CBI
on 17.10.1981 the name ofO.P. Sharma, respondent no. 5, was shown above
the names of the petitioners, Madhavan and Sen. The petitioners, Madhavan
and Sen challenged the inter se seniority list on the ground that respondent
C no. 5 was the deputationist in CBI and that on absorption he was not entitled
to the benefit of his services in Rajasthan Police Service. On this contention,
this Court vide para 19 held that, in computing the requisite period of service
in the matter of appointment/ promotion to the post of SP in CBI, the period
during which O.P. Sharma, respondent no. 5, held the post ofDSP in Rajasthan
State Police Service should be taken into consideration.
D
11. Relying on this paragraph, it is urged on behalf of respondent no.
4, Ms. Amrit Brar, that her services in CRPF should also be taken into account
in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority and that she was entitled to
weightage with regard to the service which she had between 9.6.1989 and 16/
17.8.1993. However, the judgment in the case of K. Madhavan (supra) clearly
E indicates that this Court examined the Service Rules in which there was a third
source of recruitment, namely transfer, and, therefore, in para 21, this Court
observed that, there was no much difference between deputation and transfer,
and since under the rules transfer was the source ofrecruitment, O.P. Sharma
was entitled to weightage for the service put by him as DSP in Rajasthan State
F Police Service. Admittedly, in the present case, transfer is not the third source
of recruitment. On the contrary, the above judgment equates deputation with
transfer. It does not equate deputation with direct appointment as done by
the impugned judgment. To this extent, there is infirmity in the impugned
judgment.

G 12. Before we proceed further, we may make it clear that, in our judgment,
we have observed earlier that we do not find any infirmity in the action of
the State Government in absorbing respondent no. 4 as Deputy S.P. in Punjab
Police Service. However, there is a caveat. According to us, strictly on
interpretation of the said 1959 Rules, there is no scope for opening of a third
H mode of recruitment. Deputation is not the source of recruitment under the
ARUN KUMAR v. U.O.I. [KAPADIA, J.) 721

said 1959 Rules. It is only as an exceptional case that respondent no. 4 was A
given the benefit of absorption in Punjab Police Service as Deputy S.P. and
we do not find any fault with that exercise. It is the genuine exercise. However,
when her services are regularized by the State not from 16/17.8.1993, when she
stood appointed as a deputationist, but from 9.6.1989, when she was appointed
as Assistant Commandant in CRPF, then infirmity in the action of the State
Government crept in. CRPF functions cannot be compared with Punjab Police 8
Service. Apart from policing, an officer of Punjab Police Service has to do the
work of investigation of crime detection, which is not within the purview of
CRPF. A Deputy S.P. in CRPF need not have the knowledge ofCrPC, IPC etc.,
which an officer in Punjab Police Service needs to possess. The Service Rules
governing CRPF are different from the Service Rules which governed Punjab C
Police Service. Therefore, even functionally, the two cadres are different. In
fact, respondent no. 4, Ms. Amrit Brar, has not undergone training as
contemplated under Punjab Police Service Rules. However, she has put in 5
years experience as Deputy S.P. in Punjab Police Service between 16/17.8.1993
and 11.9.1998. That experience should be given due weightage. In our view,
having examined the above Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, it is clear that D
deputation is not the source of recruitment. Direct recruitment is the source.
Promotion is the source. However, deputation is not the source for recruitment.
Moreover, in the present case, we are concerned with the rights of the
appellants. We are concerned with the inter se seniority in the said post of
Deputy S.P. since that seniority ultimately counts for promotion to the next E
higher cadre. The post of Deputy S.P. is a feeder post in that sense and when
the post is a feeder post, the inter se seniority has the role to play. In the
circumstances, if deputation is not the source of recruitment, then even in
exceptional cases of this nature, weightage cannot be given, in the absence
of the rules, to the services rendered by Ms. Amrit Brar in CRPF. Rule 14 talks
of relaxation. However, Rule 14 is not applicable to the rules which do not F
provide for recruitment through deputation. Rule 14 would have applied if the
said 1959 Rules had a third source of recruitment, namely, deputation. There
is no such third source ofrecruitment. Hence, Rule 14 has no application. Rule
14 refers to relaxation of rules. Rule 14 contemplates existence of a rule of
recruitment. If there is no such rule providing for third source of recruitment, G
the Government cannot relax a non existent rule. Therefore, the High Court
had erred in treating deputation as a third source of recruitment. There is a
difference between direct appointment as a source of recruitment and
deputation/ transfer as a source of recruitment. In certain cases, cited before
us, weightage has been given to the service put in by the transferee. However,
in all those cases, the third source of recruitment was transfer/ deputation. H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A In the present case, there is no such rule to that extent. There is cm error in
the impugned judgment of the High Court. As state above, Ms. Amrit Brar
has put in 5 years service as a deputationist in Punjab Police Service between
16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998. She is certainly entitled to the weightage for the
services rendered by her during these 5 years. However, she is not entitled
B to weightage of service between 9.6.1989 and 16/17.8.1993, as held by the
High Court, for the fixation of inter se seniority.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.

v.s. Appeal Partly allowed.
c