Holding

Continuous officiating service of promotee Sub‑Inspectors must be counted for seniority, making promotees senior to direct recruits of the same year under Rules 4‑6 of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981.

Summary

The appellants, originally constables in the Calcutta Police, were promoted to officiating Sub‑Inspectors and later confirmed, but were placed below many directly recruited Sub‑Inspectors in the seniority list. They argued that seniority should be based on their continuous officiating service, not on the date of confirmation, and that the rule requiring confirmation before promotion to Inspector was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court examined the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981, particularly Rules 4, 5 and 6, and held that in the absence of a contrary rule, seniority between promotees and direct recruits is determined by continuous officiation in non‑fortuitous vacancies, with promotees of the same year being senior to direct recruits. The Court rejected the High Court's view that seniority could only be counted from confirmation. Consequently, a writ was issued directing the state to re‑fix the seniority of the appellants and similarly situated officers. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The proper basis for determining seniority between promotee Sub‑Inspectors and directly recruited Sub‑Inspectors under the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981.
Whether the rule making confirmation a condition precedent for promotion to Inspector of Police violates Articles 14, 16 and 209 of the Constitution.
The interpretation of Rule 6 in relation to Rule 3(vi) and the concept of ‘date of joining’ for seniority purposes.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16, s. Art.209, s. Art.309

Subjects

senioritypromoteedirect recruitWest Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules 1981police promotionconfirmationconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 16continuous officiationseniority listCalcutta Police

Judgment

914

PRAN KRISHNA GOSWAMI & ORS.

v.
B
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

April 24, 1985

[R.S. PATHAK., 0. CHINNAPPA RmnY AND R.B. MISRA., JJ.]

West Bengal Services (Detennination of Seniority) Rules 1981. Rules 4, 5 )
and 6:
c
Proniotees and Direct Recruits-Seniority-Fixation of-Se11iorfty among
pro1notees-Date of joining-Seniority between promo tees and direct recruiJs-
Year of joining.
D
Civil Services :

Seniority-Fixation of-Direct Recruits and Promotees Service Ru/e.~
Ahsence of-General principle is seniority detern1ined on basis of continuous
officiation in non-fortuitous vacancies.

E The appellants joined the State Police Force as Constables, were promoted
or
a CJ A&sistant Sub-Inspectors of Police, and later a:i officiating Sub-Inspectors
Police and confirmed as Sub-Inspectors. In the meanwhile, a large number 1
persons were directly recruited as SulJ..Inspectors, and also confinned. All these
persons were, ranked above the appellants in the seniority list.

In writ petitions to the High Court, the appellants. contended that their
F seniority must be reckoned from the date of their continuous officiation as sub-
Inspectors, and that they were never considered for promotion to the neJtt higher
post oflnspecto·r of Police, because of their delayed confirn1ation, and of the
insistence of the Rules that they should be confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police
before they could be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Pollice
and that th:: offending Rule be quashed. The State supported the clain1 of the •
appellants to seniority on the basis of continuous officiation, but the direct
G recruits contested the writ petition.

The High Court refused to recognise the claim of the appellants to senioa
rity from the dates of their continuous officiation, on the ground that their
promotion as officiating Sub-lnspectors of Police could only be. considered as
promotion _to posts outside the cadre. It further held, that their seniority could
H1 only be reckoned from .the date of their confirmation, and that the rule pres-
P.K. GOSWAMI. v. WEST BENGAL 915
A
;ribiag confirmation as Sub-Inspector as a condition precedent for promotion
to the post of Inspector of Police was not invalid.

Allowing the Appeals ,

HELD : I. The three apPellants are entitled to have the benefit of their .B
continuous officiating service as Sub-Inspectors of Police counted for seniority as
Sub-Inspectors of Police. A writ will issue, directing the state to re-fix the scniO·
rity of the appellants and other officers similar1y situated. (939 F]

2. It is not undisputed, that in the absence of Rules to the c9ntrary,
regulating the question of seniority between 'direct recruits' and the •promotees'
the general principle to be implied and followed to determine seniority is to base
it on continuous offication in non-fortuitous vacancies. [9298] - c
In the instant case, the officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police were obviously
appointed to officiate in p_erminent or tempot'ary vacancies in the existing
subordinate ranks of the Calcutta Police, governed by the Same Rules and Regu-
lations a11 other Sub-Inspectors of Police, drawing the same pay and discharging
the same duties. There was not and there could _never be any question of
officiating Sub-Inspectors constituting a different cadre, class or category by D
themselves. [9l4G-H)

3. Rule 4 of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules,
1981 which deals with seniority amongst direct recruits, broadly provides that
their relative s~niority sh:iH be according to the cadre of merit when they are
selected at the same examination persons appointed on the basis of an earlier F
examination taking precedence over those appointed on the basis of a later
examination. It further provides that where seniority has not been previously
determined it shalt be determined according to the actual date of joining. Rule S
deals with determination of seniority of promotees and provides that seniority
of a person appointed to any post, cadre or grade shalI be determined from the
date of joining such post, cadre or grade, which by Rule 3 (vi) means the date of
continuous officiation in the post, cadre or grade. Rule 6 prescribes that the E
relative seniority between a promotee and a direct recruit shall be determined by
the year of appointment or promotion of each in ~the post, cadre or grade
irrespective of the date of joining, and that the promotees shall be en-bloc
senior to the direct recruits of the same year. Rules 4, 5 and 6 constitute a single·
•
scheme and if read together the scheme becomes clear. While date of joining is
important to decide the question of seniority amongst promotees, it is the year
of joining that is relevant when the question of relative seniority is to be. deter. G
mined between promotees and direct recruits. If direct recruits are appointed
and promotees are promoted in the same year, all promotees are to take
precedCnce over the direct recruit, irrespective of the actual date of their joining
but as amongst the promotees themselves, the seniority is to be based on the date
of. joining. That f-; the true and appropriate construction of Rules 4, 5 and 6,
and that was what the State Government wanted to do and was done.
{935 F-H ;931) A-CJ
916 SUPREMB CURT REPRTS [1985] 3 s:c.R.

Ganga Ram v. Union of India, (1970; 3 SCR 481, Katyanf Dayal v. Union
A
of India [1980], 3 SCR 139, distinguished.

S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] 3 SCR 775 Baleshwar
Da.s v. State of U.P. [1981] l SCR 449; A. Janardhana v. Union of India,
1983 3 SCC 601, O.P. Sing/a v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1595; G.S.
lamba & Ors. v. Union of India, [1985] 3 SCR 431, B.S. Gupta v. Union of
B India, [1975] SUPP SCR 491 ; A.K. Subramana v. Union of India, [1973] 2 SCR
979 ; P.S. Mahal v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1291 ; referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4C0·401
of 1984

c Prom the Judgment and Order dated 15 7.1983 of the Calcutta
High Court in C.R.No. 7979 (W) of198l.

M.K. Ramamurthi, B. Datta, Ri<hi Kcsh, Badri Prasad and
Pudisserry, for the Appellants.

D S.N. Kacker, H.K. Puri, D.N. Mukhmtee, J.R. Das and D.K.
Sinha for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The wars of the Roses go on. How
else is one to describe the perpetual battles waged between the
E
'direct-recruits' and the 'promotees' ? This time the front is the
Calcutta Police, the posts are those of Sub-Inspectors of Police and
the question is the same old one of seniority. Petitioners I and 2,
who joined the Calcutta Police as Constables in November 1947
were first promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police and later,
F on August 6, 1957, as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police. They
were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police on January I, 1975.
In the meanwhile, a large number of persons were directly recruited
as Sub-Inspectors of Police and also confirmed as such. All of
them are now ranked above the petitioners in the seniority list,
•
and the petitioners, therefore, have a natural grievance. They
G claim that as laid down by a series of decisions of this court, their
seniority must be reckoned from the date of their continuous
officiation as Sub-Inspectors of Police. Petitioner No.3, we may
mention, was promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police on
September 6, 1975, but the precise date of his confirmation is not
available from the record. Apart from the claim to seniority,
Q
P. K. GOSWAMI v. WEST BENGAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 917

the petitioners also alleged that they were never considered for A
promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of Police because of
their delayed confirmation and because of the insistence of the
Rules that they should be confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police
before they could be considered for promotion to the post of Ins-
pector of Police. They want the offending rule. to be quashed. Other
reliefs were claimed in the writ petition filed by them in the High
Court, but we are not now conc.erned in this appeal with those other ll
reliefs. While the State of West Bengal appeared to support the
claim of the appellants to seniority on the basis of continuous officia-
tion, the direct-recruits contested the writ petition in the High Court.
The High Court refused to recognise the claim of the appellants to
seniority from the dates of their continuous officiation on the ground
that their promotion as officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police could c
only be considered as promotion to posts outside the cadre. The
High Court held that their seniority could only be reckon.ed from
the date of their confirmation. The High Court further held that
the rule prescribing confirmation as Sub-Inspector as a condition
precedent for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was not
invalid. The 'promotee' Sub-Inspectors have preferred this appeal D
by special leave of the court under Art. 136 of the Constitu-
tion.

It is necessary now to refer to the various recruitment and E
seniority rules made from time to time under the powers conferred
by the statute. 'Rule 2(b) of the Recruitment Rules for the Sub-
ordinate Ranks of the Calcutta Police, 1936 provided that twenty
five per cent of the vacancies shall be filled by promotion of Assis-
tant Sub-Inspectors and Sergeants and the rest by direct recruit·
meat. Rule 2(f) prescribed the qualification for outside candidates F
meaning thereby direct-recruits. What is important to be noted is
that they were required to be Graduates of a University. Rule 2(g)
•• prescribe~. the qualifications for departmental candidates and it is
necessary to extract the whole of it, which is as follows :-
G.
"(g) Qualifications for departmental can<,lidates-

On the first of June, nominations shall be called for
from all District Officers of Assistant Sub· Inspectors and
Sergeants fit for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspectors.
Nominees shall have had at least 3 years' service as Ser· ·H
918' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

geant or Assistant Sub-Inspector, be less than 40 years of
A
age and normally have passed one of the following exami-
nation.· ·

(I) Matriculation or the Indian Army Special Certi·
B ficate of Education,

(2) Junior Cambridge,

(3) First Class Army Certificate,

or have, in the opinion of the Selection Board, other-
c wise attained a satisfactory educational standard. They
shall sit in a preliminary departmental test examination
at the Calcutta Police Training School. The names of
all nominees who pass that examination shall be sub-
mitted to the Selection Board. The c~ndidates shall
D have-

(i) a good record of service, and

(ii) a good social position ;

The Judge of this should be the Selection Board.
E
Note -On passing out of the Calcutta Police Training
School officers shall remain on probation prior to confir-
mation."

Rule 2 (j) which applied both to outside and departmental
F candidates was as follows :-
"(j) Qualified Candidates· shall be summoned before a
Selection'. Board consisting of the Commissioner of
Police, '.the Deputy :commissioner of Police, Head-
quarters,· a District Deputy Commissioner, and an •
Assistant Commissioner of Police. Tile Selection
G Board shall make the final selections for appoint-
ment.''

The Probation Rules for the Subordinate Ranks of the
Calcutta Police, 1936 prescribed that for Sub-Inspectors, the period
q of probation of a person directly recruited or of an officer who was
P.!<: GOSWAMI v. wesr BENGAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 919
1 promoted from a lower rank shall be two years counting from the A
date of his joining the Calcutta Police Training. School. While
Rule 2 sub-rule 3 provided that persoas directly recruited shall
draw the minimum pay in the tim•-scale of Sub-Inspectors through
the period of their probation. Rule 2 sub-rule 4 provided
that promoted officers shall draw the minimum pay in the time-
scale of Sub-Inspectors, subject to the condition that they shall B
count towards increment, officiating and temporary service in that
rank rendered prior to their appointment as probationers and also
their probationary period or any part thereof and. draw increment
that may fall due to them during the period of their probation.
It was further stipulated that a probationer shall be confirmed on
the termination of his probationary period unless. the Deputy c
Commissioner incharge of a District shall during the period of pro-
bation make an order extending this period of probation or discharg-
ing him from service or reverting him to his substantive rank. An
order of extension· of probation was not . to extend beyond one
year, except with tbe sanction of the Commissioner of Police. D

By an order dated December 16, 1940, it was provided that
when determining the relative seniority of probationary Sub-Inspec-
tors in the Calcutta Police, the following principles were to be
observed:
E
"(l) Departmentally appJinted Sub-Inspectors will be senior
to direct recruits of the same year and will be graded inter se
according to the date of their confirmation in the rank of Assistant
Sub-Inspector.
F
· (2) The seniorty of directly recruited Sub-Inspectors will be in
accordance with their position In the final examination at the Police
Training School."

In supersession of this order, a further order was issued on
December 14, 1960 laying down the principles to be followed in G
determining the relative seniority of probationary Sub-Inspectors
of the Calcutta Police. The principles were as follows : -

"(I) The seniority of departmentally promoted and directly
recruited Sub-Inspectors will be determined in accor-
H
920 SUPREME CURT REPRT> (1985) 3 S.C.R'

A dance with the dates of their probationary appoint- · ·
ment in the rank.

(2) Where a departmentally promoted Sub-Inspector and
a directly recruited Sub-Inspector are appointed on
probation with effect from the same date, the depart-
B mental officer will be senior to the direct recruit,
provided they undergo training at the Police Training
College the same year.

,(3) The seniority of the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors
will be in order of their position in the final exami-
c nation held at the Police Training College and that
of the departmentally promoted officers be in accor-
dance with their position in the approved list of
officiating Sub-Inspectors, fit for confirmation in the .
rank of Sub-Inspector."
D
In 1962, the Calcutta and Suburban Police (subordinate ranks
recruitment, conditions of service and discipline) Rules were
made. Schedule I prescribed the method of recruitment, quali-
fications for appintment including age and conditions of service.
Paragraph 2 of the Schedule dealt with Sub-Inspectors not belong-
E ing to the Armed Branch and to the exteat it is relevant, is extracted
below:

. -. "Sub-Inspectors not belonging to the Armed Branch

2. (I) Method of recruitment : Recruitment in the rank·
F of Sub-Inspector shall be made each year in the
month of January. Twenty-five per cent of the
vacancies shall be filled by promotion of Assistant
Sub-Inspectors and the remaining vacancies shall be
filled by direct recruitment.

(2) For filling up vacancies by promotions candidates
G
shall be selected on the basis of merit only.

(3) (a) For filling up vacancies by direct recruitment
applications from outsiders shall be invited
through the Press in the !st week of August ........... .
H
P.lC.GOSWAMI v. wesr BENGAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 921
1
(b) ........................................ .. A

(c) ...................................... .

(4) Qualifications for outside candidates-The candidates
shall- ·
B
(i) be graduates of one of the Indian universities ;

(1.1') ....................
(1··1·1) ..................
(iv) ................. .
c
(v) ................. .

(5) Qualifications for departmental candidetes-
On the first day of June every year nominations shall D
be called for from all Deputy Commissioners of Assistant
Snb-Inspectors fitfor promotion to the rank of Sub-Ins·
pector. Nominees shall have had at least 3 years of service
as Assist~nt Sub-Inspector, be less than 40 years of age
and normally have passed one of the following exami-
nations: E

(a) Matriculation, School Final or Higher Secondary
Examination or the Indian Army Special Certi-
ficate of Education Examination ;

(b) Junior Cambridge Examination ; F

(c) First class Army Certificate Examination ;

oi have, in the opinion of the Selection Board referred
to in sub-rule (7), otherwise attained a satisfactory edu·
cational standard. They shall be required to sit in a G
preliminary departmental test examination. The names
of all nominees who pass that examination shall be sub-
mitted to· the said Selection Board. The candidates shall
have in the the opinion of the said Selection Board
a good record of service.
H
922 SUPRBME COURT RBPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.k

A Note-Selected candidates shall have to undergo a
course of training in the Police Training College. On
passing out of the Police Training College, officers shall
remain on probation prior to confirmation.
(6) ...................... ..

B (7) Qualified candidates shall be summoned before a
Selection Board consisting of the Deputy Commi·
sioner, Headquarters, a Divisional Deputy Commisio-
ner and an Assistant Commissioner of Police. Appoint-
ment shall be made of candidates included in an
approved list of candidates prepared on the recom-
c mendation of the Selection Board.
(8} ..................... ..

Paragraph 19 of Schedule I deals with the probation of Sub·
Inspectors and to the extent necessary it is extracted below :-
D "Sub-Inspectors
19. (I) The period of probation of a person directly recruited
as a Sub-Inspector shall be two years counting from
the date of leaving the Police Training College and
that of an officer promoted as a Sub-Inspector from
E a lower rank shall be one year counting from the date
of joining the Police Training College on such pro·
motion.
(2) ......................... ..

,F (3) Promoted Sub-Inspectors shall draw the grade pay in
the time-scale of Sub-Inspectors, subject to the
condition that they shall count towards increment
officiating and temporary service in that rank ren-
dered prior to their appointment as probationers and 1

also.their probationary period or any part thereof and
G draw increment that may fall due to them during
the period of their probation. A probationer Sub-
Inspector shall be confirmed on the completion of his
probationary period unless the Deputy Commissioner,
Headquarters, shall make an order extending his

..H period of probation or discharging him from servi~e
i'.k. oosW\Ml v. WEST BENGA.L (chinnappa- Reddy, J.) 923
or reverting him to his substantive rank. Any order A
for such extension of the probationary period or rever-
sion or discharge shall indicate grounds on which the
order is made. Such an order of extension shall not
ordinarily extend the period of probation beyond one
year. For extension for any Period beyond one year, B
the sanction of the Commissioner shall be obtained.

(4) (a) The training period of promoted Sub-Inspectors
shall be one year, of which the first six monthsshall
be spent in the Police Training College. The
training period·of direct recruits as Sub-Inspectors
shall be two years of which one year shall be c
spent in the Police Training College.

(b) The initial pay of direct recruits as Sub-Inspectors
when posted to the Police Training College shall
be Rs. 200 per mensem, the minimum of the
time scale of pay of Sub-Inspectors. D

(c) Such part of the training period of direct recruits
as Sub-Inspectors as is spent in the Police Training
College, namely, one year, shall be exclusive of
the probationary period and count towards incre-
ment of pay. E

(d) The training period of promoted Sub-Insi.-ectors
shall count towards increment of pay."

In 1967, the Police Regulations, Calcutta were framed
under section 3 of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866 and F
section 9 of the Calcutta Police Act. Chapter XV dealt with method
of recruitment, qualifications for appointment including age and
conditions of service. Paragraph 3 of Chapter XV dealt with Sub-
Inspectors not belonging to the Armed Branch. To the extent
necessary, paragraph 3 is extracted again :
G
"3. Sub-Inspectors not belonging to the Armed Branch :

(1) Method of recruitment-Recruitment in the rank of
Sub-Inspector shall be made each year in the month of
January. One-third of the vacancies shall be filled
l1
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3s.c.il.

A by promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, and the
remaining vacancies shall be filled by direct recruit-
ment.

(2) For filling up vacancies by promotion candidates shall
be selected on the basis of merit with due regard to
B seniority,

(3) (a) ......... - ................ ..

(b) ............................. .

c (c) ............................. .

(4) Qualifications for candidates for direct recruitment-

The candidates shall-

D (i) ------

(ii) be graduates of one of the Indian Universities.

(iii) - - - - - -

E (iv) - - - - - -

(v) ------

(vi) ------

(5) Qualified candidates shall be required to appear for an
F
.interview before a Selection Board consisting oftbe De-
puty Commissioner, Headquarters, and two other De-
puty Commissioners nominated'by the Commissioner.
Appointment shall be made of candidates included in ,
an approved list of candidates prepared on the recom- .. .
G mendation of the Selection Board.

(6) - - - - - - - - - - -

(7) Qualifications for departmental candidates- Nomi-
nations shall be called for as and when necessary from·
all Deputy Commissioners of all Assistant Sub·Inspec-
il.K. GOSWAMI v.WBIT ll8NGAL (Chinndppa Reddy, f) , 925
tors fit for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector. A
Nominees shall have had at least three years of
service as Assistant Sub-Inspector and normally have
passed one of the following examinations :-

(a) Matriculation, School Final or Higher Secondary
B
Examination o"r the Indian Army Special Certifi-
cate of Education Examination ;

(b) Junior Cambridge Examinati?n ;

(c) First Class Army Certificate Examinat.ionJ; or

have, in the opinion of the Selection Board,' referred
to in Sub-rule (8) below otherwise attained a satis-
factory educational standard.
J'
They shall be required to sit in· a departmental
examination the procedure and syllabus for which shall I)'
be such as may be determined by · the Comm.issioner.

(8) The names of all nominee' who pass tbat examination
shall be submitted to the Selection Board. The candi-
dates shall have in the opinion of the Selection Board,
good records of service. The Selection Board shall con- E''
sist of Deputy Commissioner, Headquarters, and two
other Deputy Commissioners nominated by the Com-
missioner.

(9) Candidates must have passed the departmental exami-
• nation completely before they are interviewed by the
Selection Board. Candidate shall be eligible for the
examination referr~d to above after they are confirmed
in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector.

Note. Selected candidatei (both direct recruits
and departmental) shall have to undergo a course G'
of training in the Police Training College.
(IO) An officiating Sub-Inspector having completed two
years'.continuous service in the rank and on comple-
tion of the required course of training shall be eligible H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19SSJ 3 s.c.a.
fo(appearing before the Selection Board concerned
A
for inclusion of his name in the panel of officiating
Sub-Inspector fit for confirmation in the rank of Sub-
Inspector."

Paragraph 46 may also be extracted here :
B
(I) The period of probation of a person directly recruited
as a Sub-Inspector or a Sub-Inspectoress shall be two
years counting from the date of leaving the Police
Training College or School, as the case may be, and
that of an officer promoted as a Sub-Inspector or Sub-
c lnspectoress from the lower rank shall be one year
counting from the date of his or her appointment on
probation. Such part of the trainini: period of direct
recruits as Sub·Inspectors or Sub-lnspectoress as is
spent in the Police Training College or School,
D namely, one year, shall be eirclusive of the probation-
ary period and count towards increment of pay.

(2) .•••.•..•.••..•..•.••..• ··•••• .•••••.•••••.••.•...••••..•..• - .•...•

(3) Promoted Sub-Inspectors including Sub-lnspectoresses
E shall draw the grade pay in the time scale of Sub-Ins-
pectors, subject to the condition that officiating and
temporary service in that rank rendered prior to their
appointment as probationers and also their probation-
ary period or any part thereof shall count towards
F increment and they shall draw increment that may fall
due to them during the period of their probation. A
probationary Sub-Inspector or Sub-lnspectoress shall
be confirmed on the completion of his or her pro-
bationary period ,unless the Deputy Commissioner,
Head-quarters, shall make an order extending his or
G her period of probation or discharging him or her
from service or in the case of a promoted Sub· Ins-
pector or Sub-Inspectoress reverted him or her to his
or her substantive rank. Any order for such extension
of the probationary period or reversion or discharge
shall indicate grounds on which the order is made.
Such an order of extension shall not exceed the period
ff
i>.R:. GOSWAMI v. WEST JiENG~i. (Chinnappa Reddy, I.) 927
r of probation beyond one year in the case of a direct
recruit and six months in the case of a promotee. For A
extension of anv period beyond one year or six
months, as the case may be, sanction of Government
shall be obtained."

In 1981 the West Bengal Services (Determinatio'n of Seniority) B
Rules were made and it is not disputed before us that these rules are
applicable to the Calcutta Police. Rule 3 (iv) defines "post"," cadre"
or "grade" as meaning any post, cadre or grade in connection with
the affairs of the St~te of West Bengal. Rule 3 (vi) says, "date of Join-
ing" shall be reckoned from the date of continuous officiation in a
post/cadre or grade. Rules 4, 5 and 6 which deal with 'Determi- c
nation of ~eniority of direct recruits'. 'determination of seniority or
promotees, and relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees,
are important and have to be extracted in fu!l. They are as follows:

"4. Determination of seniority of direct recruits. The re-
lative seniority of all persons appointed directly D
through competitive exaaiioation or interview or after
training or otherwise sh_all be determine by the order
of merit in which they are selected for such appoint-
ment on the recommendation of the Commis~ion or
other selecting authority, persons appointed on the
result of an earlier selection being senior to those E
appointed on the result of a subsequent selection:

Provided that where appointment of persons initially
made otherwise than in accordance with the relevant
recruitment rules is subsequently regularised in consul-
F
tation with the Commission, where necessary, seniority
of such persons shall be determined from the date of
regularisation and not from the date of appointment.
The inter-Se-seniority amongst such persons shall how-
ever, depend on the date of appointment of each such
person in the department or office concerned:
G
Provided further that if any person selected for ap-
pointment to any post does not join within two months
of the offer of appointment, his seniority shall count
from the date on which he joins the post unless the . '
H
SUPREME COURT REPORtS (1985] 3 s.C.R.

A appointing authority for reasons to be recorded in
writing condones the delay.
" ·Note-(!) A list of candidates for the purpose of selec-
tion for appointment shall be prepared in all cases by
the selecting authority, when there will be recruitment
Bl in a single process of selection of more than 011e
person.

(2) Where the inter-se-seniority aIQongst several
' ·persons has not been determined prior to the coming
into force of these rules; such seniority shall, on the
' •coming into force of these rules, be determined on the
/
basis of actual date of their joining. When the date of
joining of all such persons is the same, seniority shall
'be determined on the basis of date of birth, person
retiring earlier being adjudged as senior. When the
•date of birth is the same, seniority shall be determin.ed
on the basis of total marks obtained by each in the
examination, passing of which is the qualification pres-
. cribed for recruitment to the particular cadre or grade.

(3)' In so far as the. determination of relative seniority of
E persons selected either by the Commission or by other
\ , ·selecting authority for appointment to different posts
iri the same grade with different qualifications such as
posts of Assistant Professors in History, Economics,
Physics; Chemistry, etc., 'is concerned, seniority shall be
".determined fro:m the date of joining.
F . ,
. 5,., Determination of seniority of promo tees-
'
(!) .. Seniority of •person appointed on ·promotion to any
'" Post, cadre or grade shall be determined from the date
G '"' of joining-such post, cadre or grade.

(2) When there. will be appointment in a single process of
·;, s~Jection of more than one person the; relative senio-
' rity of persons so appointed shall be determined by
'• th;c or-der in .which they are selected for such promo-
,1 .tion. '"I
P.K. GOSWAMI v. WEsr BP.NGAL (Chinnappa Reddy, i.) 929
(3) Persons appointed on the result of an earlier selection Al.
shall be senior to those appointed on the results of a ,
subsequent selection.
.
(4) Where promotions (o a post, cadre or grade are made
from more than one post, cadre or grade, the relative_ .,
seniority of the promotees from different posts, cadre B (!
or grades shall be according . to the order of nie;it . :
11
determined by the commission or .the selecting autho-.
. rity, if such posts, c~ders or grades do not come within' ' '
the purview of the commission. .

Note I -A.list of candidates for the purpose of selec- c•
tion for promotion shall be prepared in all cases by the
selecting authority when appointments are made on
promotion in a single· process of selection of more
.than one. person. ;
'
Note 2-Where the inter-se-seniority amongst several D:,
persons has not been determined prior to the coming
, into force of these rules, such seniority shall, on the
coming into force of these rules, be determined on the
basis of date of joining. ·when the date of joining .of
such person is the same, seniority in the promotion
post, cadre or grade shall follow the seniority in the E;
lower feeder post, cadre or grade. ·.• . '
;_,j

6. · Relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees-
'
1. The relative seniority between a promotee and a ·direct
recruit shall be determined by the year of appoint-
• F•
·.· mentor promotion of each in the post, cadre or grade
irrespective of the date of joining.

2. The promotees shall be en-bloc senior to the direct
recruits of the same year." ·
A certain amount of confusion has been created by the
reliance placed by the High Court upon the decisions of this Court
in Ganga Ram v. Union oJ' fndia(') and Katyani Dayal v. Union of
lndia.( 2 ) We wish to make it clear, straightaway, that nbither of
(I) [1970] 3 SCR 481.
(2) [1980] 3 SCR 139. lll
930 SUPRBME COIJRf REPO!tts [t 985i 3s.c.lt.
A these cases has any application to the facts of this case, as we shall
presently explain.

The proposition is now undisputed, and, indeed none of the
Counsel who appeared before us disputed it, that in the absence of
Rules to the contrary regulating the question of seniority between
B 'direct-recruits' and the 'promotees', the general principle to be
implied and followed to determine seniority is to base it on conti-
nuous officiation in non-fortuitous vacancies. In the case of S. B.
Patwardha11 v. State of Maharashtra(') Chandrachud, CJ. observed :

c "We, however, hope that the Government will bear in
)_.
mind the basic principle that if a cadre consists of both
permanent and temporary employees, th1 accident of
confirmation canaet b1 aa iatelligiblc criterion for deter-
mining seniority as between 'direct-recruits' and the
'promotees'. All other factors being equal, continuous
D officiation in a non-fortuitous vacancy ought t receive due
recognition in determining rules of seniority as between
persons recruited from different sources, so long as they
belong to the same cadre, discharge similar functions and
bear the same responsibilities."

E Jn Baleshwar Dass v. State of U. P.('), Krishna Iyer, J. had
occasion to observe :

"We must emphasise that while temporary and
permanent posts have great relevancy in regard to the
F:: career of Government servants, keeping posts temporary
for long, sometimes by annual renewal for several years,
and denying tbe claims of the incumbents on the score that
their posts are temporary makes no sense and strikes us as
arbitrary, especially when both temporary and permanent
appointees are functionally identified. If, in the normal
G· course, a post is temporary in the real sense and the
appointee knows that his tenure cannot exceed the post in
longevity, there cannot be anything unfair or capricious in
clothing him with no rights. Not so, if the post is, for
certain departmental or like purposes, declared temporary,

R (I) [1977] 3 S.C.R. 775
(2) [1981) I S.C.R. 449.
t'.K. GOSWAMI v. WEST BENGAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 931
but it is within the ken of both the Government and the
appointee that the temporary posts are virtually Jong·
lived. It is irrational to reject the claim of the 'temporary'
appointee on the nominal 1core of the terminology of the
post. We must also express emphatically that the principle
which has received the sanction of this Court's pronounce-
ments is that officiating service in a post is for all practical B
purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular basis.
It may be permissible, within limits, for Government to
ignore officiating service and count only regular service
when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules
in that regard are clear and categorical and do not admit
of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years
c
of service does not tab place or there is functionally and '
qualitatively, substantial difference in the service ren·
dered in the two types of posts. While rules regulating
conditions of service are within the executive power of the
State or its legislative power under proviso to Article 309, D
even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not
grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Arts. 14
and 16."

To the same effect in A. Janardhana v. Union of lndia,(1 ),
•
D. A. Desai, J. observed : E

" ...... In other words, after having rendered service in
a post included in the service, he is hanging outside the
service, without finding a berth in service, whereas direct
recruits of 1976 have found their place and berth in the
service. This is tho situation that stares into one's face
while interpreting the quota-rota rule and its impact on the
service of an individual. But avoiding any humanitarian
approach to the problem, we shall strictly go by the rele-
vant Rules and precedents and the impact of the Rules on
the members of the service and determine whether the
impugned seniority list is valid or not. But, having done G
that we do propose to examine and expose an extremely
undesirable, unjust and inequitable situation emerging in
service, jurisprudence from the precedents namely, that a

(I) rt983l 3 sec 601. H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R·
IA person already rendering service as a promotee has to go
down below a person who comes into service decades after
the promotee enters the service and who may be a schoo·
lian, if not in embryo, when the promotee on being pro-
moted on account of the pigencies of service as required
B
by the Government started rendering ~ervice. A time has
come to recast service jurisprudence on more just and equi-
table foundation 'by examining all precedents on the sub-
ject to retrieve this _situation.?'

c These cases were quoted with approval by Chandrachud, CJ,
and one of us (Pathak, J.) in O.P~ Sing/av. Union of lndia(I), In
that' case 'as a·result of the applicatiofr of Rules 16 and L7 of the
Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Rules, the 'quota and rota' Rule
ceased to apply and the question arose what was the criterion to be
ado'pted to determine the seniority botweJn 'direct recruits' and
'promotees'. Chandrachud, CJ. and Pathak, J. ·obserned ;.
,I)
'
Since the rule of ,'quota and rota' ceases to apply when
appointments are made under Rr. 16 and 17, the seniority
of direct recruits and promotees appointed under those
Rules must be determined according to the dates on which
direct recruits were appointed to their respective posts and
E
the dates from which the promotees have been officiating
continuously either in tenworary posts created in the ser·
vice or in substantive vacancies to which they were appoin-
ted in a temporary capacity,"
F
G.S. Lamba & Ors. v. U~ion of India,('> there was a break-
down of the 'quoto-rota' Rule as it had not been followed. The
problem was how was seniority to be determined between direct-
recruits and promotees. D.A. Desai, J. with whom· Khalid, J.
agreed after noticing the decisions in B.S. Gupta v. Union of India\').
A.K. Subramana v. Union of f!fdia.('! P.'S. Mahal v. Union of India,
G Jan~rdhana v. Union of lndia, 0.P. Sing/a v. Union of India (Supra)
observed;

(I) AIR [1984) SC. 1595.
(2) [1985] 3 S.C.R. 431.
M (l) [1975 SUPP. SCR 401,
(4) [1979] 2 SCR 979.
•

P.K. GOSWAMI v. WEST BBNGl<L (ChinnappaReddy, J.) 933

"In the absence of any other valid principle of: seliio•''-' A
rity it is well-established that •the continuos officiation: in -I ~
the cadre, grade or service will provide a -valid- principle- of
seniority. The seniority lists having not been"preparedr:on .,,,;_,
this principle are liable to be. quashed· and· set aside ..",,•' e, '-
• , ,, · •• If • ' ··' '"'\ ·

We may now refer to the two decisions of_this CourLupon
which reliance was placed by the High Cour-t. In
Ga~ga Ram·v:
Union of India (1), the question arose with regard to the _validity of
a provision of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual according
to which amongst Clerks Grade I who had been promoted-fr-Om ,the
rank of Clerks ,Grade II after ,passing .the .prescribed- qµalifying
examination, those who had been pr-0moted earlier because; they
c
'._.I
had passed the ~xamination earlier, were-, nevertheless .required ,,(o
take their place in the seniority list after those who ,w~re· promoted
iater because they had passed the examination. later if the latter hap;
pened to be senior in, Grade IL In other words, notwithstanding
their actual dates of commencement of continuous ofljciation 01 pro•
motees to Grade I carried with them tl,ieir 1~~niority, ~n Qra~e. IL :I)
The Rule was _challenged on the ground., of discrimination, lt,was
~aid that in the case of direct 'recruit to Grade I senior.ity 'was-recko-
ned from the date of appointment-_ to Grade I whereas- in the- cas_e
of promotees amongst themselves their seniority. was based on- their
seniority in Grade II. This argument was repelled by'this _Court dn
the ground that direct recruits and promotees constituted_ different ,·.-.
E
classes and the-classification was sustainable ..it was-said. that-pro'
motion to Grade I was guided by the consideration of seniority~cum··
merit and it was, therefore, difficult to find fault with_the -provision
which placed -in one group all those Grade II clerks who had-, quali-
fied by passing the examination. -The fact that the· promotees· ftom
Grade II who had officiated for some time were not given the_ credit F
of that period when a permanent vacancy arose also did not"attract
the prohibition contained in Arts. 14 and 16_. It did not constitute
any hostile discrimination and was neither arbitrary- nor unreason'
able. It applied uniformly to all Grade II clerks who had qualified-
and become eligible. The onus, it was said, was on the petitioners
to establish discrimination. The difference emphasised on behalf of-
t.he petitioners, it was finally observed, was too tenu~us to •form the
basis of a serious argument. It will -be seen that the case was not
concerned at all with the rival claims of direct recruits and_ promo.
A:J.R. !984 SC. 1291
•

934 SUPREMH COURT REPORTS [ 1985) 3 s.C.R.

themselves. The comparison with direct recruits was only for the
A purpose of advancing the claim that since amongst direct recruits
seniority was reckoned in a particular way, there was no reason why
the same principle should not be adopted in the case of promotees
also instead of the principle of basing seniority in Gracie I on senio-
rity In Grade II. We do not think that this case is of any avail to the
II direct recruits In the present case.

In Katyanl Dayal v. Union of India, in order to meet some
special requirements of new situations created by new projects, some
new posts of temporary Assistant Officers,. were created under a
special scheme. These Temporary Assistant Officers belonged nei-
c ther· to class I nor to class II service, though on completion of three
years service it was declared that they could be considered for absorp
lion In Class I, Junior Scale. The temporary Assistant Office'ra
filed a writ petition claiming that they were appointed to the Indian
Railway Service of Engineers Class I right from the beginning and
that the Railway Board was wrong in treating them as belonging to
D neither class I nor class II. The court held that the service comp·
rising the Temporary Assistant Officers and the Indian Railway Ser·
vie~ of EnKineers Class I started separately and never become one.
The objects of their recruitment were dissimilar and the appointing
alithority was not the same. The training that was imparted was
also unlike. The very tenure of the Temporary Assistant Officers
E
was precarious and their immediate aspiration was only to be absor·
bed·into the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I. These
distinctive features marked out the Temporary Assistant Officers as
a Class apart from the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I
and therefore there was no question of entitlement of equal rights
with the later. Of course, once they were absorbed into the Indian
Railway Service of Engineers they would be entitled not to be trea-
ted differently thereafter. Their seniority would ordinarily be recko·
,.
ned from the date of their absorption into the Railway Service of
Engineers, as promised in their letters of appointment. It was fur·
ther pointed out that there was a fundamental qualitative difference,
linked with the method of recruitment. Though the minimum edu-
cational qualification was the same, those who were recruited direct·
ly to the Indian Railway Service of Enginem Cius I were subjected
to stiff and competitive, written and personality tests. Only the very
best could aspite to come out seccessful. The Temporary Assistant
Officers were not subjected either to a written test or to a personality
P.K:. GOSWAMI v. WEST BENGAL (Chlnnappq Reddy, I.) 935
test but were selected on the basis of an interview by the Union
,\
Public Service Commission. In addition to the minimum educational
qualification, three years' experience as a Civil Engineer was also
prescribed. Thus while brilliance was the beacon light which becko-
ned those aspiring to become members of the Indian Railway Ser-
vice of Engineer; Class !, it was replaced by experience in the case
of those wanting to be Temporary Assistant Officers. Again the B
appointing authority in the c1se of Indian Railway Service of Engi-
neers· Class I was the President while the appointing authority in
the case of tempvrary Agsistant Officers was the Railway Board, no
doubt, pursuant to the authority given by the President. Different
co~rses of training were prescribed for the Indian Railway Service
of Engineers and the Temporary Assistant Officers. For the Indian c
Railway Service of Engineers the training was an intensive and com-.
prehensive one designed to equip them for higher posts in the
Department too while the training for Temporary Assistant· Engi-
. neers was a brief six mJnth,' training intended merely to equip
them for carrying out the specific jobs. In the matter of terms and .
conditions of service, while the provisions ~of the Indian Railway D
Establishment Code were fully applicable to the Indian Railway
Service of Engineers Class I, those provisions were applicable to
'Temporary Assistant Officers' to the extent there was no specific
provision in their letter of appointment and agreement.
E
It was on those fa'ts and circumstances that it was held that
there was no discrimination directed against the temporary Assistant
Officers. We are unable to see how this case can possible help the
direct recruits in the present case. It was suggested that the officia-
ting Suh-Inspectors of Police who had been promoted from the rank
of Assistant Sub-Inspectors were appointed to posts outside the F
cadre as in Katyani Dayal's case and it was this argument that
found favour with the High Court. There is no basis .whatsoever for
the supposition that there was any new cadre or any new class of
posts created by the Government, known as officiating Sub-Inspec-
tor of police. The officiating Sub· Inspectors of Police were obviously
appointed to officiate in permrnent or temporary vacancies in the G
existing subordinate ranks of the Calcutta Police, governed by the
same Rutes and regulations as other Sub-Inspectors of police, draw-
ing the same pay and discharging the same duties. There was not
and there could never be any question of officiating Sub-Inspectors
constituting a different cadre, class or category by themselves. n·
936 SUpREMB COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R.

A The next question is whether the Rules regulating the recruit·
ment, seniority etc. of Sub-Inspectors of Police in the Calcutta
Police make any departure from the general principle laid down in
the whole series of cases commencing with Patwardhan to which we
have already referred. Earlier we have set out in great detail all the
relevant rules in force from time to time. We do not find anything
B in any of the rules indicating an intention to depart from the gene-
ral principle. Shri S. N. Kacker, learned counsel for the direct
recruits invited our attention to Rule 6 of the West Bengal Services
(Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 and asked us to read it in
the light of Rule 3 (vi) which defines 'date of joining' and stipulates
that date of joining shall be reckoned from the date of continuous
c officiation in a post/cadre or grade. Rule 6 (i) prcvides that relative ""--
seniority between a promotee and a direct recruit shall be deter- '
mined by the year of appointment or promotion of each in the post,
cadre or grade irrespective of the date of joining and Rule 6 (2)
provides that the promotees shall be en-bloc senior to the direct
D recruits of the same year. The submission of Shri Kackar was that
'date of joining' as defined in Rule 3 (vi) was expressly made irrele·
vant by Rule 6 (I) for the purpose of determining Seniority between
a promotee and a direct recruit and it meant that the period of
continuous officiation was not to be taken into account in determin.
ing relative seniority between promotees and direct recruits. The
E argument though superficially attractive Jacks substance. A perusal
of Rule 4 and 5 makes the- position clear. Rules 4, 5 and 6 consti-
tute a single scheme. Now Rule 4 which deals with seniority amongst
direct recruits, broadly, provides that their relative seniority shall be
according to the cadre of merit when they are selected at the same
examination, persons appointed on the basis of an earlier exami-
F nation taking precedence over those appointed on the basis of a
later examination.' Rule 4 further provides that where seniority has not
been previonsly determined it shall be determined according to the
actual date of joining. Rule 5 deals with determination of seniority
of promo tees and, broadly again, provides that seniority of person
appointed to any post, cadre of grade shall be determined from the
G date of joining such post, cadre or grade, which we know from Rule
3 (vi) means the date of constinuous officiation in the post, cadre or
grade. Then comes Rule 6 which prescribes that the relative senio-
rity between a promotees and a direct recruit shall be determined by
the year of appointment or promotion of each in the post, cadre or
H grade irrespective of the date of joining and that the promotees
P.K:. GOSWAMI v. wEn BENGAL (Chlnnappa Reddy, J.) 937

shall be en-blow senior to the direct recruits of the same year. Now,
A
if Rules 4, 5 and 6 are read together the scheme becomes clear.
While date of joining fs important to decide, the question of senio-
rity amongst promotees, it is the year of joining· that is relevant
when the question of relative seniority is to be determined between
proinotees and direct recruits. If direct recruits are appointed and
promotees are promotee in the same year, all promotees are to take B
precedence over the direct recruit, irrespective of the acttial date of
their joining but as amongst the promotees themselves, the senio-
rity is to be based on the date of joining. That according to us is the
true and appropriate construction of Rules 4, 5 and 6. We are in-
deed very happy to note that this is precisely what the West Bengal
Government wanted to do and it was done with a view to give c
effect to the judgments of this Court. Paragraph 5 (II) the affidavit
of Nirupom Som, Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, is worth extract-
ing and it is as follows :·

"5 (!) '"''"""''"'"'''"'''''"''''•Uo•O
. ..
D

5 (II) (a) With effect from II. 3. 81, the West Bengal
Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 were
promulgated under Article 209 of the Constitution. These
rules were made foll9wing the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra E
case (AIR 1977 SC 2051). Previously the seniority was
determined under provisions laid down in the Finance
Department Memo No. 568-F dated 20. 2. 68. Prior to
20.2.68, there was no codified principies, the respective
Departments following principles that might be different in
F
different departments.

" (b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court made observations,
inter-alia as follows in the aforesaid case:-

(i) The vice of the seniority rule (with determines G
seniority between direct 'recruits and promotees from the
date of confirmation) is that it leaves the valuable right
·of seniority to depend upon the mere accident of confir•
mation. That under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
is impermissible and therefore, we must strike down the
H
said rule as being unconsti tutionaJ."
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3 S.C.R,

A " (ii) We do not want to take upon ourselves task of
framing rules of seniority. That is not the function of this
Court and frankly it lacks the expertise and data-to do so.
We, however, hope that the Government will bear in mind
the basic principles that if a cadre consists of both perma-
nent and temporary ·employees, the accident of confirma-
8 tion cannot be an intelligible criterion for determining
seniority as betwe en direct recruits and promotees. All
. others factors being equal continuous officiating in a non-
fortuitous vacancy ought to receive due recognition in
terminating rules of seniority as between person recruited
a from different sources, so long as they belong the same
cadres discharge similarly functions and bear similar res-
ponsibilities."

"(cl In the light of the aforesaid observations of.the
Hon'ble Supreme Court the provisions in Finance Depart-
D ment Memo no. 568-F dated 20. 2. 68 were exmined in
' Consnltation with the law officers of Government and the
public service commission. The West Bengal Service (De-
termination of Seniority) Rules 1981 were promulgated
with effect from 11. 3. 81 after gue observance of all
formalities and considering all aspects of the matter."
E
Again in paragraph 10 it was said,

"IO ....... I submit that in the instant case it can
hardly be disputed that both !\le direct recruits as well as
the promotees Sub-Inspectors of Police form one class.
F They are both known by the same designation, they have
the same scales of pay, they discharge the same functions,
and the posts held by them arc interchangeable. Thus
there is nothing to show that the two groups are kept apart,
and both are merged together in the same class. lt is not
competent to the Government thereafter to discriminate
G between directly recruited Sub-Inspectors and promotee
Sub-Inspectors in the matter of further promotion to the
posts of Inspectors, as that would be violation of Article 16
of the Constitution. It is submitted that the rule of pro-
motion is inextricable linked with the rule of weightage
and seniority in the lower grade. There is a well recog-
H nised discrimination between promotion and confirmation
P.\('. GOSWAMi v. WEST BENGAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 939
and the tests to be supplied for the purposes of promotion
A
are entirely different from those that had to be applied at
the time of confirmation. Though drawn from two different
sources, the direct recruits and promotees constitute in the
instant case a single integrated .cadre. They discharge in-
dentical functions, bear similar responsibilities and acquire
an equal amount of experience in their respective assignment. B
The superseded principles for Determination of Seniority
denied to the promotees the benifit. of their long and valu-
able experience. If there was some intelligible grounds for
this differentiation being nexus with efficiencies in public
. services, it might perhaps have been _possible to sustain . '
such a classification. Confirmation is one of the inglorious c
uncertainities of Government Service depending within an
efficiency of the incumbent nor on toe availability of sub-
stantive vacancies. The vice of the seniority rule (which
determines seniority between direct recruits and promotees)
from the date of confirmation·is that it leaves the valuable 1
right of seniority to depend upon the mere accident of D
confirmation: That under Article 14 and 16 of the consti-
tution, is impermissible. If a cadre consist of both perma-
nent and temporary employees, the accident of confirmation
cannot be an intelligible criterion for determining seniority
as between direct recruits and promotees. All other facts
being equal continuous officiating in a non-fortuitous vacan- E
cy oughi to receive due recognition in determining rules
of seniority as between . persons recruits from different
· sources, so long as they belong to the same cadre discharge
similarly functions and bear similar responsibilities."

F
We think it is needless to further dilate on this topic except to
express our appreciation of the stand taken by the West Bengal
Government in these paragraphs.

The final submiss_ion of Mr. Kacker was that the appellants G
had never appeared at the prescribed examination, had never been
called before the Selection Board and ·had never been sent to the
Police Training College. They had never gone through the selec-
tion process prescribed by the _Rules and could not therefore have
been validly app'linted as Officiating Sub-Inspectors 'of Police or
confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police. The appellants, at least two H
SUPREME cOURT REPORTS [198'5] 3 s.c.il..
A of them, have been officiating as Sub-Inspectors of Police since al-
most three decades and even confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police
for a decade. We are afraid it is rather late in the day for Mr.
Kacker to raise this question at almost the final stages of a long
drawn out battle. It is true.that in their writ petition in the High
B Court, the appellants made the barest of allegations in regard to
their process of selection which they went through before they were
promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police. They had said,

"After passing the departmental examination for pro-
motion to the rank of Sub-Inspector, your petitioners were
c declared fit for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector and
yonr petitioners Nos. I and 2 were promoted to the rank
of Sub-Inspector on the 6th August, 1957 while your
petitioner No. I was promoted to the rank of Sub-lnspec•
tor on the 8th September, 1975."
D
Even this bare allegation was not properly denied in the counter-
filed by the respondents and that was never seriously put in issue.
At the conclusion of the hearing we called upon the State of West
Bengal to produce all the relevant records pertaining to the service
careers of the three appellants but we do not purpose to wait for
E them. Enough for us to do justice as it appears from the records
now before us. We think that the three appellants are entitled to
have the benefit of their continuous officiating service as Sub-Ins-
pectors of Police counted for seniority as Sub-Inspectors of Police.
A writ will, therefore, issue directing the respondents to re-fix the
seniority of the appellants and other officers similarly situated in
F accordance with what we have said above.

A further question was raised by the appellants regarding the
validity of the paragraph l (iii) of the Police Regulation, Calcutta,
1967 which provides that directly recruited Sub-Inspectors shall be
G eligible to sit for the departmental examination to qualify themselves
for promotion after their confirmation and on completion of 7
years' service, including temporary service in their rank. On the
other hand, they complain that' the rule provides that departmental
Sub-Inspectors who have been so appointed by promotion shall be
eligible to sit (or the examination after their confirmation in the
rank of Sub-Inspectors provided that their total length of service
HI as Sub-Inspector is not less than 7 years'. Seemingly, the rule
i>.k. GOSWAMi v. WEST BENGAL ( C:hinnappa Reddy; J.) 94i
appears to treat both the direct recruits and promotees on the same A
footing, but it was submitted by a learned counsel for the petitioners ·
that in practice the rule works harshly on the promotees because of
the 'inglorious' uncertaintY. of the confirmation of the promotees. It
was said that the date of confirmation of a promotee was so incur-
ably uncertain, compelling a promotee to wait for more than a
B
decade for confirmation and thus he will not be eligible to appear
for the qualifying examination for promotion as Inspector of Police
even though he has completed 7 years of continuous officiating
se~vice as Sub-Inspector of Police. There appears to be some legi-
timate scope for grievance on this question b'ecause of the vagaries
of dates of confirmation of promotees, but we are not inclined to c
examine this question in the present case as petitions 1 and 2 made
no efforts to qualify themselves for promotion by appearing in the
examination after their confirmation in 1975 even though they had
already completed 7 years of service. In the case of the 3rd petition-
er, he had not even completed 7 years' service by the date of the
filing of the writ petition and we are told 'that he had also now D
retired from service. In the circumstances, we do not think it
necessary to examine this question. The appeal is, therefore, allo·
wed in the manner and to the extent indicated. Such other benefits
to which the appellants are entitled under the judgment of the High
Court will remain uneffected. The appellants will get their cost.,
which we quantify to Rs. 5, 000. E

N. V.K. Appeals allowed. F