Holding

The appellant is entitled to his year of allotment only from the later inclusion in the select list in 1982, not from his earlier continuous officiation.

Summary

D. Radhakrishnan, appointed to the Tamil Nadu State Police Service in 1979, was transferred to a cadre post in July 1980 and continuously officiated there. He was first placed on the UPSC‑approved select list in 1979 (continued for 1980), omitted in 1981 due to lack of vacancies, and re‑included in 1982. The Central Administrative Tribunal fixed his year of allotment as 1978, which he challenged on the grounds that the 1981 omission was illegal and that his seniority should be counted from 1980, the start of continuous officiation. The Supreme Court examined Rule 3(3) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules and prior decisions, holding that seniority is determined by the later of the date of inclusion in the select list or the start of continuous officiation. Consequently, the appellant’s year of allotment could only be dated from his 1982 inclusion, not from 1980, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the year of allotment for a promotee officer should be fixed from the date of inclusion in the UPSC‑approved select list or from the date of continuous officiation in a senior post, whichever is later.
Whether the omission of the appellant from the 1981 select list was illegal and affects his seniority.

Subjects

seniorityyear of allotmentpolice servicepromotionselect listIPS Regulation of Seniority Rulesadministrative law

Judgment

D. RADHAKRISHNAN A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 2, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Service Law :

JPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules:

Rule 3(3)-Assignment of year of allotment-Appellant included in the C
select list in 1979 and approved by UPSC--The list continued for 198()--Jn
1981 his name was not included for want of vacancies allottable to State
Cadre-Again he was included in 1982 in the select list and approved by
UPSC-Before the Tribunal he challenged his non-inclusion in 1981 and that
his year of allotment should be 1980 as he was continuously officiating from D
1980-0n appeal held, appellant entitled to his year of allotment only from
the date when he was later included in the select list in 1982.

Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Supp. 3 SCC
575 & R.RS. Chauhan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., [1995) Supp. 3 SCC
109, relied on. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11997 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 3 of 1992. F
G. Umapathy and K. Swami for the Appellant.

Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswamy, Sr. Adv.,
P. Parameshwaran, Ms. Sushma Suri and V. Krishnamurthy, for the respon- _
&~ • . G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides. H
431
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 23, 1995 in OA
No. 3/92. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed to
Tamil Nadu State Police Services by direct recruitment on October 7, 1979.
He was transferred and posted as D.C.P., Law & Order, Madras (South)
which is a cadre post, w.e.f. July 27, 1980 and ever since he had been
B continuously officiating in the cadre post. He was included in the select,
list for the first time, on October 26, 1979 approved by the UPSC on
December 12, 1979. the same list was continued for the year 1980. But in
the select list for the year 1981, he was not included for want of requisite
vacancy allottable to the State cadre. Consequently, he came to be included
c again on December 16, 1982 in the select list approved by the UPSC on
March 28, 1983. When his seniority was determined, the order of allotment
indicated that 1978 was fixed as his year of allotment. He questioned the
correctness thereof on two grounds, namely, his non-inclusion in the list
for the year 1981 was qad in law; he also contended that since he was
D continuously officiating from 1980 and was included in the select list for
the first time in the year 1979, his year of allotment should be 1980. Both
the contentions were negatived by the Tribunal. The question for con-
sideration, therefore, is : whether the Tribunal is right in its conclusion?
Rule 3(3) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules reads as under :

E "3. Assignment of year of Allotment.

(1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accord-
ance with the provisions hereinafter contained in this rule.

(2) .......................................................................................................... .
F
6
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service
after the commencement of these rules shall be -

(a) where the officer is appointed to the service of the results
of a competitive examination the year following the year in
G
which such examination was held;

(b) where the officer is appointed to the service by promotion in
accordance with rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the year of
allotment of the junior-mo.st among the officers recruited to
H the service in accordance with rule 7 of these Rules who
D. RAD HA.KRISHNAN v. U.0.1. 433

officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier A
than the date of commencement of such officiation by the
former.

Provided that the year of allotment of an officer appointed to the
Service in accordance with Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules who
started officiating continuously in a senior post from a date earlier B
than the date on which any of the officers recruited to the service,
... in accordance with rule 7 of those Rules, so started officiating shall
be determined ad hoc by the Central Government in consultation
with the State Government concerned.

Explanation 1 c In respect of an officer appointed to the service
c
by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the
Recruitment Rules, the period of his continuous officiation in a
senior post shall, for the purposes of determination of his seniority;
count only from the date of the inclusion of his name in the select
list, or from the date of his officiating appointment to such senior D
post whichever is later."
..
This rule was considered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court
in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC
575. After an elaborate consideration, in paragnph 21 of the judgment, E
this Court had held as under :

"Thus it is settled law that a promotee officer appointed temporari-
ly under regulation 8 of Promotion Regulations and Rule 9 of .
Cadre Rules to a cadre post does not get his/her continuous
officiation towards seniority. Seniority would be counted only from F
the date on which he/she was brought into the select-list by the
selection committee in accordance with Recruitment Rules,
Promotion Regulations and Seniority Rules and was approved by
the UPSC, appointed under Rule 9 of Recruitment Rules and
Regulation 9 of Promotion Regulations and has continuously of-
ficiated without break. Seniority would be entitled from the date G
of select-list or continuous officiation whichever is later. He/she is
entitled to appointment by the Central Government to substantive
vacancy under Regulation 9 of Promotion Regulations from. that
date. The Central Government and the UPSC should approve
temporary appointment by an order in writing and also of such H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A officiation. In that event seniority would be counted only from the
date, either of his/her inclusion in the select-list or from the date
of officiating appointment to the cadre post whichever is later. By
operation of Explanation 1 to Rule 3(3) (b) of the Seniority Rules,
his seniority will be counted only from either of the later dates and
the necessary effect is that the entire previous period of officiation
B should be rendered fortuitous and the appointment as ad hoc
appointment or by local arrangement."

This was again reconsidered by another Bench of two Judges of this
Court in R.R.S. Chouhan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1995] Supp. 3
C SCC 109. This Court in the latter judgment has held that in the matter of
year of allotment, the basis should be the date of inclusion or of continuous
officiation, whichever is later. It was held that where an officer continuously
officiating as Officer on Special Duty, was promoted to the IFS after his
name was included in the select list for the IFS in different years except in
the year immediately preceding the year of his promotion, assuming that
D the post of OSD was a senior post, benefit of such officiation was held to
be not available in assignment of year of allotment to him since he was
included in the select list in the later year by operation of the Explanation
II to Rule 3(3) of the Rules.

Thus, we hold that the appellant was entitled to his year of allotment
E only from the date when he was later included in the select list in the year
1982. Accordingly, 1978 as his year of allotment was immediately below the
· year of the direct recruits in the cadre.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.
F G.N. Appeal dismissed.