PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC.versusP. RAMASESHAIAH & ORS. ETC.

                             [2017] 3 S.C.R. 226


A                 PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC.
                                      v.
                    P. RAMASESHAIAH & ORS. ETC.
                   (Civil Appeal Nos. 6795-6798 of2014)
B                              APRIL 12,2017
            [KURIAN JOSEPH ANU I{. llANlJMATlll, JJ.)
          Service Law:
           Appoi11/111e111 by transfer - 011 !he post of lmpector of Police
c   in Andhra Pradesh Police Service - Feeder category for
    appointment being Catego1y I Sub-Inspector (Civil) - One of the
    methods of appointment to category I Sub-Inspector (Civil) is
    appointment by trans.fer from Reserve Sub-Inspector - However,
    the Reserve Sub-Inspector appointed as Sub-Inspector (Civil) shall
    be entitled to retain his seniority from the date of his original
D
    appointment - Eligibility criteria for appointment by tran:,jer to the
    post of Inspector was 6 years service - Whether Reserve
    Sub-Inspector Ji.'ho was transferred 011 selection as Sub-Inspector
    (Civil), for recruitment by tra11sfer to the post of I11spec1or, should
    have 6 years of completed service as Sub-inspector (Civil) or a
E   total service of 6 years including the service as Reserve
    Sub-Inspector - Held: For appoinlment to the post of Inspector, the
    Sub-lmpector (Civil) who was appointed to such post fiwn the post
    of Reserve Sub-Inspector was required to have 6 years completed
    service as Sub-Inspector (Civil) :-- Andhra Pradesh Police
    Subordinate service Rules. 1966 - n 2 a11d 15 -Andhra Pradesh
F
    Police Service Rules, 1966 - n: 3 and 5.
            'Seniority' and 'Eligibilily' - Dist inc/ion between - Both are
    distinct concepts - If the senior is otherwise not eligible for
    consideration as per the rules for promotion, the senior will have to
    give J!'UY to eligible juniors.
G
          'Transfer' and 'Recruitment by Tran.~fer' - Distinction
    between - Discussed.
          Dismissing the ap11cals, the Court
          HELD: 1. A.P. Police Subordinate Service and A.P. Police
H
                                     226
PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. v. P. RAMASESHAIAH & 227
                   ORS. ETC.

Service arc two distinct and separate services. Though the pay         A
scales of both categories i.e. S11b-lns1)cctor of Police (Civil) and
Reserve Snb-lnspcctor of Police in Class I 1wst of A.P. Police
Subordinate Service is one and the same, the posts are not
interchangeable. There is fonclional difference in the service as
well. The selection to the 11ost of Snb-lns11cctor (Civil) from
                                                                       B
Rcscl've Sub-Inspector is by way of transfer by selection based
on merit. Only S'X1 1111ota is allocated lo the Reserve Snb-
lnspcctors. Once the Reserve Sub-Inspector comes into the
category of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), he is entitled to carry
his seniority from the date of appointment as Reserve Sub-
Iuspector and placed acconlingly in the seniority list of Sub-         c
lnspcctors (Civil). In other words as and when a Reserve Sub-
Inspcctor is selected and appointed by transfer to the post of
Sub-Inspector (Civil), though there may be Sub-lns11i!ctors of
Police (Civil) already availahle in that category working for more
than 4 years but less than 5 years yet the Reserve Sub-Inspector
                                                                       D
transferred as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) will he placed above
those existing Sub-Inspectors of Police recruited from other
channels without. the benefit of 'carry on' seniority. But that docs
not mean that on such placement in seniority, he will be entitled
to claim a11poi11tmcnt us Inspector of Police in the A.P. Police
Service since under the A.P. Police Service Rules, a Sub-Inspector     E
of Police recruited by transfer should have a minimum service of
6 completed years for appointment by transfer as Inspector of
Police. This rule is not under challenge.[Para 11)(234-A-E]
      2. Whal is required in the category of ap11ellants namely,
Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) recruited by transfer for             F
appointment as Ins11cctors is 6 completed yeus of service as
Sub-Inspectors (Civil) and not total service of 6 years including
the service as Reserve Sub-Ins1)ectors. The rule as it stands is
crystal clear and docs not call for any other intcq>retation. (Para
12J[234-G)
                                                                       G
      3. Transfer and recruitment by transfer are eutircly two
different concepts. No doubt transfer can be from one category
to another category or within the class, if the rule permits
interchangeability of the categories within a class. Any other
transfer both intra category anll inter category arc in fact, under
                                                                       H
228            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     law is a selection and appointment by way of a transfer from one
      category to another or from one class to another class or from
      one service to another. If it is a transfer simplicitor it conveys a
      different meaning and if it is a recruitment by transfer conveys a
      different concept altogether. The latter is a mode of selection/
      recruitment to a service. The recruitment by transfer terminates
B
      the lie11 of an employee in the parent cadre/service whereas
      transfer simplicitor to a similar post in the same cadre results
      only in change of place of employment and therefore there is no
      termination of lien. !Paras 14, 15]1235-H, I<']
            V Jagannad/111 Rao & Ors. i: State ofA.l~ & Ors. (2001)
c           10 SCC 401 : (20011 5 Suppl. SCR 179; B. Thirumal v.
            Ananda Sivakumar & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 593: [2013J
            14 SCR 1076 - relied on.
             4. Seniority and eligibility arc also distinct concepts. As far
      as promotion or recruitment by transfer to a higher category or
D     different service is concerned, if the method of promotion is
      seniority-cum-merit or seniority per se, there is no question of
      eligible senior being superseded. Other things being equal, senior
      automatically gets promoted. But in the case of selection based
      on merit-cum~seniority, it is a settled principle that seniority has
E     to give way to merit. Only if merit being equal, senior will get
      the promotion. [Para 16)1235-G-U; 236-A]
             S, Merely because a person is senior, if the senior is not
      otherwise eligible for consideration as per the rules for promotion,
      the senior will have to give way to the eligible juniors. In the
F     present case, Reserve Sub-Inspectors selected and appointed
      on transfer as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) carries seniority from the
      date of appointment as Resen•e Sub-Inspectors. But the eligibility
      for appointment by way of a transfer to the post of Jns1Jector under
      the A.P. Police Service req uircs 6 conq>leted years of service
      after being recrnitcd to the category of Sub-Inspector of Police
G     (Civil). In other words, though the Reserve Sub-Inspector
      selected and appointed on transfer as Sub-Inspector (Civil) may
      be scniormost in the category of Sub-Inspector of Police, but
      still he will be ineligible for consideration of appointment as
      Inspector in case he docs not have 6 years of service as Sub-
H     Inspector of Police (Civil). All his juniors who have 6 years of
PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. v. P. RAMASESHAlAH & 229
                   ORS. ETC.

service as Sub-Inspector or Police and having been recruited to           A
that post from different catcgo.-ics arc entitled to steal a march
over him as the rule now stands. The rule making authority in its
wisdom has provided such a classification and there is no material
on record to u1>sct the said wisdom. [Para 17J1236-B-E]
      R. Prablw Devi and others v. Government of India,                   B
      Through Secretary. Minis/I)' of Personnel and 11-aining,
      Admi11istra1ive Rejim11s and olhers (1988) 2 SCC 233:
      I 19881 3 SCR 147; State of Pw?iab and others i: lnder
      Singh and olhers (1997) 8 SCC 372: 119971 4 Su1>1>l.
      SCR 425; Shiba Shankar Mohapalra & Ors. v. State
      of Orissa and olhers (2010) 12 SCC 471: [2009) 15
                                                                          c
       SCR 866 - relied on.
                       Case I ,aw lkfcrcnce
      [2001) 5 Suppl. SCR 179           relied oil       Para 15
      120131 14 SCR 1076                relied on        Para 15          D

      [1988] 3 SCR 147                  relied Oil       Para 18
      119971 4 Suppl. SCR 425           relied on        Para 18
      [20091 15 SCR 866                 relied on        Para 18
                                                                          E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6795-
6798of2014.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 27749,
27708, 28373 of2007 and 14433 of2008
                                                                          F
                                    WITH
      C. A. Nos. 6799-6800, 680 I, 6802-6803of2014.
       R. Basant, Raju Ramachandran, B. Adhinarayana Rao, Guru
Krishna Kumar, R. Venkataramani, V. V. Rao, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Karthik
Ashok, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Rajat Kapoor, Ms. Swathi Guleria,          G
D. Abhinav Rao, Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Surbhi, Ramakrishna G.,
Y. S. Venkata Rao, Ms. Simdoora VML, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Santosh
Paul, M. Vijaya Bhaskar, R. Chandrashekhar Reddy, Yashraj Singh
Bunde la, Biju P. Raman, Narendcr Kumar, Ms. Ashthi Tyagi, C. Kannan,
Yijaishrce Patnaik, Ms. Sujata d., Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh,
                                                                          H
230            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        l2017]3 S.C.R.


A     P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kumar Tyagi, Mis. Venkat Palwai Law
      Associates), Advs., with them for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by
          KURIAN, J. 1. Seniority versus eligibility. transfer versus
    appointment by transfer. are the coi1tlicting concepts arising for
B · consideration in this case. The quintessence of the whole dispute centers
    round interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service
    Rules and the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules.
            2. The Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules consist
      of 7 classes. We are concerned with Class I. Class l consists of the
C     following 7 categories:-
            " Categories :
            I. Sub-Inspectors of Pol ice
            2. Sub-Inspectors of Police (Intelligence)

D
            3. Reserve Sub-Inspectors including the Band-
               master
            4. Assistant Sub-Inspectors
            5. Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspectors
            6. Head Constables (including Band Head
E
               Constables, and Reserve Head Constables, in
              Armourers, Sin gal lers and Motor Transport
                Drivers.
            7. Constables including Band Constables Reserve
F             Constables, Buglers and Bel lowboys."
             Though the qualifications for appointment and scales of pay for
      the first three categories of Class I is one and the same, they are not
      interchangeable.
            3. The category I-Sub-Inspectors of Police has later been     re-
G     designated as Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil).
             4. Method of appointment to category I Sub-Inspector of Police
      (Civil), ui1der Rule 2 of the Subordinate Service Rules is done as per
      Annexure-1 to the Rules.
            "a) By promotion of HC's uplo 30% of cadre
H
PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. v. P. RAMASESHAIAH &                              231
             ORS. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

      b) PCS, HCS, Police Ministerial staff of sportsmen upto 13% of            A
         cadre
      c) Direct recruitment upto 50% of cadre.
      d) Transfer ofRSl's from AR/APSP upto 5% (w.e.f. 02.04.1990
         as amended by G.0. Ms. No. 270 Home)
                                                                                B
      e) Compassionate appointment upto 2%"
       As per Annexur;-11 (2) (9), a Reserve Sub-Inspector shall be
eligible fur appointment by transfer to the category of Sub-Inspector,
after completion of 5 years of service and also subject to the requisite
educational qualification prescribed for Sub-Inspector (Civil). Appointment     c
by transfer to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil) is made by way of selection
by the State Level Recruitment Board.
      5. The appointment by transfer from Reserve Sub-Inspector to
the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil) against 5% reserved quota is optional.
      6. Rule 15 of the Subordinate Service Rules deals with the seniority.     D
Rule 15(a) and (c) are relevant which read as follows :-
     . "Rule 15. Seniority: (a) The seniority of a person in the class or
       category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to lower rank
       as a punishment be detennined by the date of his first appointment
       to such class or category or grade. If any portion of the service of     E
       such person does not count towards his probation under the General
       Rules his seniority shall be determined by the date of
       commencement of his service which counts towards pl'obation ....
              xxx                    xxx             xxx
       (c) The transfer of a per.son from one class or category of the F
       service to another class or category carrying the same pay or
       scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter
       for purposes of seniority and the seniority of person so transferred ·
       shall be determined with reference to the date of his first
       appointment to class or category from which he was transferred; G
       Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule,
       seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority."
      In view of the statutory provision as above on seniority a Reserve
Sub-Inspector selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector (Civil) against
                                                                                H
232              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                 [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     5% quota will be entitled to retain his seniority from the date of his
      original appointment as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police.
              ?. Inspector of Police, the next avenue open to the Sub-Inspector
      of Pol ice is under the Andhra Pradesh Pol ice Service and selection and
      appointment is governed by Andhra Pradesh Pol ice Service Rules, 1966.
B     Rule 3 oftheA.P. Police Service Rules to the extent relevant, provides:-
              "Recruitment by transfer from the Sub-Inspectors of Police
              categories of Class I in the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules
              shall be made on the grounds of merit and ability, seniority being
              considered where merit and ability are approximately equal".
c           A few things are clear, (I) the feeder category for appointment to
      the post of Inspector of Police under the A.P. Police Service Rules is the
      Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service.
      (2) The method of appointment is recruitment by transfer from the
      Subordinate Service to the State service. (3) The recruitment by transfer
D     is made on the basis of selection based on merit and ability, seniority
      being considered where merit and abi Iity are equal.
             8. Rule 5 oftheA.P. Police Service Rules provides for qualification
      for appointment to the post of Inspector of Police. The relevai1t Rule
      S(F)(i) reads as follows:-
E             "Rule S(F) (i) No Sub-Inspector of Police (Category-I, Class I of
              Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service) shall be eligible for
              appointment as Inspector of Police, Category 4, by transfer, unless
              he has put in a minimum period of service as specified in the table
              hereunder -
F
                                              TABLE
         S.No.   Sub-Inspector of Police, Category I, of   1v£nimum sernce reguired
                 A.P. Police Subordinate Smice             for appointment bv transfer
                                                           as Inspector of Police,
G                                                          Category4
         I.      Sub-Inspector (Direct Recmits)            Six completed years
         2.      Sub-Inspectors (Promotecs)                Four completed years
         '
         j_      Sub-lnsoectors iRecmited bv transfer)     Six comQleted years

H
PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. v. P. RAMASESHAIAH &                              233
             ORS. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

                                                                               A
  4.      Sub-Inspectors (Absorbed from Sub-   Four completed years
          Inspectors of Ex-Prohibition         provided he has pll! in not
          Department)                          less than Two continuous
                                               years of service as Sub-
                                               Inspector in the ex-
                                               Prohibition Depr. or six         B
                                               completed ye;rrs otherwise"

      9. Rule 6(a) of the A.P. Police Service Rules provides for
'Probation' which reads :-
       "Rule 6. Probation -(a) Every person recruited by transfer or           c
       promotion to a category in the service shall be on probation for a
       total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two
       and half years."
        The simple issue to be tackled in this case is whether a Reserve
Sub-Inspector of Police who is transferred on selection as Sub-Inspector        D
of Police (Civil) in the A.P. Police Subordinate Service when recruited
by transfer to A.P. Police Service and appointed as Inspector, should
have 6 years of completed service as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) or
a total service of 6 years including the service as Reserve Sub-Inspector?
The Tribunal and the High Court have held that 6 years service required
for appointment as Inspector under the A.P. Police Service should be as         E
Sub-ll1spectorof Police (Civil) and the same does not include the service
rendered as Reserve Sub-Inspector. Thus aggrieved, the appellants are
before this Court.
       I 0. Heard learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing on
behalf of both sides. Though several contentions have been raised, the          F
crux of the arguments is that once seniority is considered from the date
of appointment as Reserve Sub-Inspector, since the scales of pay of
Reserve Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector (Civil) is the same and since
both belong to the same class under the A.P. Police Subordinate Service,
the Sub-Inspectors selected by transfer and appointed as Sub-Inspectors        G
(Civil) against 5% vacancy and subsequently recruitment by transfer
should be allowed to carry the benefit of total service, lest it should also
violate Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia.                   ·
       11. We find it difficult to appreciate the above submission. A.P.
                                                                               H
234            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     Police Subordinate Service and A.P. Police Service are two distinct and
      separate services. And though the pay scales of both categories in Class
      I post of A.P. Police Subordinate Service is one and the same, the posts
      are not interchangeable. It has been the submission of the State that
      there is functional difference in the service as well. Be that as it may,
      the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil) from Reserve Sub-
B
      Inspector is by way of transfer by selection based on merit. Only 5%
      quota is allocated to the Reserve Sub-Inspectors. Once the Reserve
      Sub-Inspector comes into the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil),
      he is entitled to carry his seniority from the date of appointment as
       Reserve Sub-Inspector and placed accordingly in the seniority list of
c     Sub-Inspectors (Civil). Jn other words as and when a Reserve Sub-
       lnspector is selected and appointed by transfer to the post of Sub-
       lnspector (Civil), though there may be Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil)
      already available in that catego1y working for more than 4 years but less
      than 5 years yet the Reserve Sub-Inspector transferred as Sub-Inspector
      of Police (Civil) will be placed above those existing Sub-Inspectors of .
D
      Police recruited from other channels without the benefit of 'carry on'
       seniority. But that does not mean that on such placement in seniority he
       will be entitled to claim appointment as Inspector of Police in the A.P.
       Police Service since undertheA.P. Police Service Rules, a Sub-Inspector
       of Police recruited by transfer should have a minimum service of 6
 E     completed years for appointment by transfer as Inspector of Police.
       This rule is not under challenge.
             12. The learned senior counsel for the appellants made a persuasive
      attempt placing reliance on minimum service in the case of Sub-Inspectors
      absorbed from Sub-Inspectors of Ex-Prohibition Department. Under the
 F    said category the minimum service required is 4 completed years as
      Sub-Inspector (Civil) provided such an Inspector has put in not less than
      2 continuous years of service as Sub-Inspector in the Ex-Prohibition
      Department or has completed 6 years otherwise. That wi II not take the
      appellants anywhere. What is required in the catego1y of appellants
      namely, Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) recruited by transfer for
 G    appointment as Inspectors is 6 completed years of service as Sub-
      lnspectors and nottotal service of 6 years including the service as Reserve
      Sub-Inspectors. The rule as it stands is crystal clear and does not call
      for any other interpretation.

 H
 PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. v. P. RAMASESHAIAH & 235
               ORS. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

        13. The rule as stands now and having regard to the functional           A
 duties of Reserve Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector, and in the absence
 of a challenge set up on discrimination we find it difficult to test the
 arguments on the tenets of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia.
         14. Transfer and recruitment by transfer are entirely two different
 concepts. No dtJubt transfer can be from one category to another category B
 or within the class ifthe rule permits interchangeability of the categories
 within a class. Any other transfer both intra category and inter category
 are in fact, under law is a selection and appointment by way of a transfer·
 from one category to another or from one class to another class or from
 one service to another. If it is a transfer simpl icitor it conveys a different
 meaning and if it is a recruitment by trai1sfer, as we have clarified above
                                                                                 c
 conveys a different concept altogether. The latter is a mode of selection/
 recruitment to a service.
         15. Transfer in relation to service simply means a change of a
  place of employment within an organization. Such transfer being to a
  similar post in the same cadre and therefore obviously such a transfer         D
  does not result in the termination of his lien in the parent cadre but
  recruitment by transfer is a different service concept altogether. It is a
  method of recruitment to a service, in the instant case to a different
  category in the same service initially and thereafter to a different service
  altogether. Once an employee undergoes a transfer by way of a                  E
  recruitment to a different cadre or to a different service, the employee
  loses his lien in the parent cadre/service. In that process, there is an
  induction to a new cadre and sometimes with a different type of duty.
  Such induction has distinct consequence on the career of the e111ployee
  different from what would have been the nonnal course had he continued
  in the parent service. Thus the recruitment by transfer terminates the         F
  lien of an employee in the parent cadre/service whereas transfer
  simplicitor to a similar post in the same cadre results only in change of
  place of employment and therefore there is no termination oflien, (See:-
. V. Jagannadha lfao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. 1, H. Thirumal v.
  Anamla Sivalmmar & Ors.1).                                                     G
        16. Seniority and eligibility are also distinct concepts. As far as
 promotion or recruitment by transfer to a higher category or different
 service is concerned if the method of promotion is seniority-cum-merit
  1
      \2001) lo sec 401
  2 (2014) 16 sec 593
                                                                                 H
236             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     or seniority per se, there is no question of eligible senior being superseded.
      Other things being equal, senior automatically gets promoted. But in the
      case of selection based on merit-cum-seniority, it is a settled principle
      that seniority has to giw way to merit. Only if merit being equal senior
      will getthe promotion.
B            17. Merely because a person is senior, if the senior is not otherwise
      eligible for consideration as per the rules for promotion, the. senior will
      have to give way to the eligible juniors. The instant case is a classic
      example for the said principle. The Reserve Sub-Inspectors selected
      and appointed on transfer as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) carries seniority from
      the <late of appointment as Reserve Sub-Inspectors. But the eligibility
c     for appointment by way of a trans for to the post of Inspector under the
      A.P. Police Service requires 6 completed years of service after being
      recruited to the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). In other
      words, though the Reserve Sub-Inspector selected and appointed on
      transfer as Sub-Inspector (Civil) may be seniormost in the category of
D     Sub-Inspector of Police, but still he will be ineligible for consideration of
      appointment as Inspector in case he does not have 6 years of service as
      Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). All his juniors who have.6 years of service
      as Sub-Inspector of Police and having been recruited to that post from
      different categories are entitled to steal a march over him as the rule
      now stands. The rule making authority in its wisdom has provided such
 E    a classification and we do not find any material on record to upset the
      said wisdom.
            18. The view taken by us as above is fortified by the decision of
      this Court in the case ofR. r·rabha Drvi and othrrs v. Government
      of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training,
 F    Administrative Reforms and othe.-s 3 wherein it has been held that:-
             "15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying
             down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When
             such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it
             cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees
 G           is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is
             entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely
             on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has
             specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of
             Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered
 H     '(1988) 2 sec 233
PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. v. P. RAMASESHAIAH &                                237
              ORS. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

      for promotion to Grade I post ofCSS. This rule is equally applicable       A
      to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee
      Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer
      has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when
      his juniors ~vho have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being
      considered for promotion to the higher post Grade I, is wholly
                                                                                  B
      unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for
      entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence
      of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be
      fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in
      order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When .
      qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are          c
      prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be
      considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does
      not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless
      he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules.
      A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the
                                                                                  D
      qua Iifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered
      for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons
      eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can'
      override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The
      rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified
      service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article       E
       14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal:
           "When certain length of service in a particular cadre can
         validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person
         possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible
         for appointment. There is no law which lays down that.a senior · F
         in service would automatically be eligible for promotion.
         Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience."
       The aforesaid view of this Cou11 in the case of R. Prabha Devi
(supra) has been reiterated and followed in State of Punjab and others
v. Imler Singh and others 4 and Shiba Shanlrnr Molrnpatra & Ors.                  G
v. State of Orissa and others\
      19. No doubt on the date of occurrence of a vacancy in the post
of Inspector of Police, in case a Reserve Sub-Inspector selected and
' u997) s sec 372
'(2010)12SCC471                                                                   H
238             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     appointed on transfer as Sub-Inspector of Police has completed 6 years
      as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), he is entitled to be considered in
      preference to his juniors in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Police.
             20. In view of the factual and legal position explained above, we
      find no merit in these appeals, accordingly they are dismissed, subject to
B     the above clarification. There shall be no order as to costs.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeals dismissed.