Holding

Seniority of an IAS officer is determined by the seniority rules applicable on the date of his appointment to the service, not by the date the vacancy arose.

Summary

S.S. Uppal, a State civil servant, was selected for absorption into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) against a non‑state quota. Although his name appeared in a panel for a vacancy that arose on 1‑Feb‑1989, he was actually appointed on 15‑Feb‑1989, after the seniority rules were amended on 3‑Feb‑1989. Uppal challenged the amendment as violative of Articles 14 and 16 and claimed seniority based on the vacancy date under the pre‑amendment rules. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the pre‑amendment rules applied, but the Supreme Court reversed this, stating that seniority is fixed according to the rules in force on the date of appointment, not the vacancy date, and that inclusion in a panel does not create an automatic right of appointment. Consequently, the amended 1989 seniority rules govern Uppal’s year of allotment, and the Tribunal’s order was set aside.

Issues considered

The appropriate date for determining seniority of an IAS officer appointed after a vacancy – date of vacancy versus date of appointment.
Whether Rule 2 of the 1989 amendment to the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether mere inclusion of a name in a selection panel confers a right to appointment.
Whether any delay in appointment caused prejudice to the appellant.

Legislation cited

Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954s. Rule 8(2)

Subjects

seniorityIASrecruitment rulesamendmentArticles 14 and 16appointmentselection panelCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
S.S. UPPAL AND ANR.

JANUARY 9, 1996

B [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.]

Service Larv :

Indian Ad1ninistrative Servfr;e (Recruit1nent) Rules, 1954; Indian Admin-
istrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 (as amended by Notifi-
c cation dated 3.2.1989).

R.8(2)/Rules 2, 3 (3) (iii)--Appointment to 1AS against quota of non-
State Civil Service Officers-Fixation of seniority--Year of allotnient--Held,
year of allotment and seniority of an officer appointed to !AS to be determined
according to seniority rules applicable on date of appointment to the
D service-Fixation of seniority in JAS.folloivs appointment to Servici--Date of
occurrence of vacancy has to relevance for purpose offixation of seniority--ll,1ere
inclusion of name in panel does not confer on candidate any right of appoint-
ment.

E Respondent no.1, an officer in the Commerce and Industry Depart-
ment of State of Madhya Pradesh, was considered suitable for absorption
in the Indian Administrative Service cadre against the quota of non-State
Civil Service Officers, under Rule 8(2) of the Indian Administrative
Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. A penal of four officers was prepared
in which the name of respondent no. 1 was placed at serial no. 4 for
F appointment against the vacancy arising on 1.2.1989. But the vacancy was
not filled up on the said date and the respondent was appointed against
the said vacancy in the Indian Administrative Service on 15.2.1989.
Meanwhile on 3.2.1989 the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service
(Regulation and Seniority) Rules were amended.
G The respondent filed an application before the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal challenging Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules 1989 as ultra
vires articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and claimed his seniority from
the date of vacancy i.e. l.2.1989 in accordance with the rules in force on
that date. The Tribunal allowed the application holding that the vacancy
H in the promotional post occurring prior to the amendment had to be filled
230
U.0.1. "· S.S. UPPAL 231
up in accordance \Vith the unamended rules, and seniority was to be A
•> determined in accordance \Vith the rules prevalent on the date the
promotion became due. It directed the Union of India to reassign the year
of allotment to the respondent in accordance with 1987 Rules.

In the present appeal tiled by the Union of India, it was contended
for the appellant that a Government servant is governed by the rules in B
force at the time of his appointment in the service and not by those in force
prior to his appointment, and since the respondent was appointed on
15.2.1989, his seniority was determined taking into consideration the
revised formula which came into force on 3.2.1989.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD : 1.1. Seniority of an officer appointed to the Indian Admin-
istrative service is determined according to the seniority rules applicable
on the date of appointment to the Service. Fixation of seniority in the
Indian Administrative Service is done only after an officer is appointed D
to the Service. The year of allotment in the IAS will have to be determined
according to the provisions of seniority rules in force at the time of
appointment of the officer. [237-H, 236-A]

1.2. Appointment to IAS after inclusion of the name of the candidate
in the select list is not automatic. Mere inclusion of the name in the panel E
does not confer any right of appointment. The State Government as well
as the officer concerned have to go through certain formalities before the
actual appointment is made. The date of occurrence of vacancy has really
no relevance for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the IAS. Weightage
in seniority cannot be given retrospective effect unless it was specifically
provided in the rules in force at the material time. The Central Govern- F
ment is competent to amend the seniority rules from .time to time keeping
in view the exigencies of administration. [236-C-B]

1.3. The question of seniority of respondent no.1 has to be determined
by the rules in force on the date of his appointment to the Indian Adminis-
trative Service. After the vacancy had arisen on 1.2.1989, a proposal of G
appointment ofrespondent no. 1 to IAS from the State Government was put
up on 14.2.1989. Thereupon he was promoted and thns actually inducted
into IAS on 15.2.1989. The revised seniority rules that came into force on
3.2.1989 will clearly apply to his case. There has been no infraction of any
rule or violation of any instruction issued by the Government. It cannot be H
.
_/
I

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.CR.
A said that there was unusual delay i111 appointing the respondent to IAS by
which he could be said to have been prejudiced. [235-H, 236-D]

Shwzkarasan Dash v. Union of India, JT (1991) 2 S.C. 380, relied on.

Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sareenivasa Rao, AIR (1983) SC 852 & SL Kaul
B and Others v. Secretary to Government of India, [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 147,
distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1492 of 1996.

From the judgment and order dated 12.1.95 of the Central Administra-
C live Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 310 of 1994.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.N. Shukla, Ms. Shashi
Kiran and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the Appellant.

P.P. Rao, Ms. Vimal Sinha, Yunus Malik, LR. Singh for the Respond-
0 en ts.

The_ Judg1nent of the CourL was delivered by

SEN, J. Special leave granted.

E Shri S.S. Uppal was appointed as Development Officer under the
Commerce and Industry Department of State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter,
he was promoted to the post of Joint Director of Industries on 2nd July, 1982.
In August, 1988, he was considered suitable for absorption in Indian Admin-
istrative Service cadre against the quota of non-State· Civil Service Officers
p under Rule 8(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1954. A panel of four suitable officers was prepared after taking into account
the vacancies which were due to arise on !st October, 1988 (two vacancies),
on 1st December, 1988 (third vacancy) and on !st February, 1989 (fourth
vacancy). Uppal was placed at s.No. 4 in the panel and, therefore, was not
considered for filling up the vacancies that arose on I st October, 1988 and on
G I st December, 1988. He could only be considered for appointment to the
vacancy which arose on !st February, 1989. This vacancy, however, was not
filled up immediately. It was only on 15th February, 1989 that S.S. Uppal was
appointed to the Indian Administrative Service. In the meantime, on 3rd
February, 1989 the provisions of Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of
H Se?iority) Rules; 1987 were amended.
U.O.I v. S.S. UPPAL [SEN, J.] 233
S.S. Uppal, the respondent No. 1 herein, made an application before the A
) Central Administrative Tribunal. Jabalpur, claiming that Rule 2 of the Amend-
ment Rules of 1989 was ultra vires and was hit by articles 14 and 16 of the
constitution of India. He further contended that in any event he was due for
appointment to the vacancy on 1st February, 1989. Therefore, his seniority
must be as of the date of vacancy on 1st February, 1989 and in accordance
B
with the rules in force on that date. The delayed appointment could not, in any
way, take away the right that had accrued to him on !st February. 1989, the
; date on which the vacancy arose.

It may be mentioned that the first three persons in the panel, B.N. Singh,
M.A. Khan and V.K. Dalela, were appointed by promotion to !AS on C
25.10.1988, 25.10.1988 and 16.12.1988 respectively. Their seniority was
determined in accordance with the LA.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules.
1987. The petitioner occupied the fourth position in a panel which was
prepared in August, 1988. Since his appointment to the service was made on
15.2.1989, his seniority was determined under the amended rules of 1989. He
made a representation on 20th January, 1990 by presenting a memorial to the D
President of India, which was rejected by an order dated 4th February, 1994.
The petitioner considered that his memorial dated 20th June 1990 was wrongly
rejected and he challenged the validity of the amendment rules of 1989 and
fixation of his seniority before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
E
The Tribunal was of the view that the question of vires of the amended
rules need not be gone into in the facts of this case, because the question of
determination of seniority in a case like this was concluded by the judgment
of this Court in the case of }' V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC
852, wherein it was held that the vacancy in the promotional posts occurring
prior to the amendment had to be filled up in accordance with unamended F
rules. The Tribunal further held that in an earlier case the Tribunal had laid
down the principle that in the case of an !AS officer, seniority was to be
determined in accordance with the rules prevalent on the date promotion
become due and not the rules which came into force on the date of actual
appointment. Applying this principle, the Tribunal concluded that "we are of G
the firm opinion that since the panel drawn in August, 1988 was in regard to
the vacancies upto 1.2.1989 and the applicant was actually appointed on
15.2.1989 in the vacancy occurred on 1.2.1989, the rules applicable on
1.2.1989 shall be applicable to him i.e. seniority of the applicant, namely, Shri
S.S. Uppal, shall be determined in accordance with Indian Administrative
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] l S.C.R.
A Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. Consequently, the orders dated
4.6.1991 and 4.2.1994 rejecting tbe representation and memorial of the
·applicant are liable to be quashed and they arc accordingly quashed."

The Tribunal, ultimately, directed the Union of India to reassign the Year
Allotment to S.S. Uppal, the respondent No. 1, in accordance with Indian
B Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987.

Tbe sh on quest10n that falls for determination is whether in the facts of
this case the revised seniority rules of 3rd February, 1989 should be applied
for the purpose of determination of seniority of S.S. Uppal. The Indian
Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987, before it was
c amended in 1989, provided for the Assignment of Year of Allotment of an
officer appointed by selection as follows :

"The Year of Allotment of an officer appointed to the service after
the commencement of these rules shall be as follows :
D The Year of Allotment of an officer appointed by selec-
tion may be determined ad hoc by the Central Government
. on the recommendations of the State Government concerned
and in consultation with the commission :

Provided that he shall not be allotted a year earlier than
E
the year of Allotment of a promotee officer already ap-
pointed to the service and whose length of service in the
State Civil S~rvice is more than the length of continuous
service of the former in connection with the affairs of the
State."
F
The aforesaid rule of 1987 was amended by notification dated 3.2.1989
to the following effect :

"The year of Allotment of an officer appointed by selection shall be
detennined in the following manner :
G
(a) For the first 12 years of Gazetted Service, he shall be given
weightage of 4 years towards fixation of the Year of Allotment.

(b) He shall also be given a weightage of one year of service beyond
the period of 12 years referred to in sub-clause (a) subject to
H maximum weightage of 5 Years. In this calculation fractions are
U.0.1. v. S.S. UPPAL [SEN, J.] 235
to be ignored. A
(c) Weightagc mentioned in sub-clause (b) shall be calculated with
effect from the year in which the officer is appointed to the
service.

Provided that he shall not become senior to another Non-State B
Civil Officer already appointed to the Service."

Uppal's claim was that the unamended rules of 1987 applied to his case
and was entitled to be assigned 1978 as the Year of Allotment, because he was
working in the pay-scale equivalent to the senior scale of !AS with effect from
2.7.1982. Four year's weightage had to be given to him from the date he C
started working in the pay-scale equivalent to the senior scale of !AS.
Therefore, 1982 minus 4 i.e. 1978 would be his Year of Allotment. There was
a proviso cont~ined in Rule 3(3 )(iii) of the unamended rules of 1987 by which
Uppal could not have been assigned the Year of Allotment earlier than a year
which had already been allotted to another officer, who had been appointed D
earlier in point of time in the service. As M.A. Khan had been appointed prior
.... in point of time to Uppal and had been assigned 1983 as his Year of Allotment,
Uppal was entitled to be given 1983 as the Year of Allotment.

There is no dispute that the assignment of Year of Allotment of ff.N.
Singh, M.A. Khan and V.K. Dalela had been done on the basis of the E
provisions of uname~ded rules of 1987.

On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that since Uppal was
appointed to IAS on 15.2.1989, his Year of Allotment was determined as 1985,
after taking into conSideration the revis-ed weightage formula, which came into
force on 3.2.1989 i.e. before the date of his appointment to IAS. The qu.estion F
of application of seniority rules which were in force prior to 3.2.1989, did not
arise, because an officer is governed by the rules in force at the time of his
appointment in the service. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal erred in
upholding the contention of Uppal that in his case the pre-revised seniority
rules would apply, merely because the vacancy arose on a date when the G
....,____-.. revised rules had not come into fqrce.

We are of the view that the question of seniority of Uppal, the
respondent No. !, has to be determined by the rules in force on the date of
his appointment to !AS. The fixation of seniority in the !AS follows appoint-
ment to the service. The Year of Allotment in the !AS will have to be H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A determined according to the provisions of seniority rules which are in force
at the time of his appointment. The date of occurrence of vacancy has really ''
no relevance for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the !AS. The fixation
of seniority is done only after an officer is appointed to !AS. The Central
Government is competent to an1end the seniority rules from tirne to ti1nc
·keeping in vicv; the exigencies of adn1inistration.
B
There is also another aspect of the case. The appointment as IAS, after
inclusion of the na1ne of a candidate in the select list, is not ·automatic. Mere '
inclusion of the name in the panel does not confer any right of appointment.
This is also not a case of inordinate delay. The State Government as well as
C the officer concerned had to go through certain formalities before the actual
appointment was made. It appears from the facts of this case that after the
vacancy had arisen on 1.2.1989, a proposal of appointment of Uppal to JAS
from the State Government was put up on 14.2.1989. Thereupon Uppal was
promoted to !AS on 15.2.1989. It cannot be said that there was unusual delay
in appointing him to IAS by which he could be said to have been prejudicated.
D The revised seniority rules that came into force on 3rd February, 1989, applied
uniformly to all the officers who were appointed on or after the date .

.The tribunal relied on the case of Y. V. Rangaiah (supra). That was a case
dealing with Rule 4(a) (1) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and
Subordinate Service Rules. There it was laid down that all first appointments
E to a certain State or subordinate service and all promotions in. a service
(otherwise than in accordance with clause (ii) of sub-rule (b) of Rule 34) shall
be made from a list of approved candidates. The rule further provided that the •
lists had to be prepared in the month of September, every year so as to be in
force until the list of approved candidates for the succeeding year was
F prepared. Apart from the aforesaid rules, the Government had issued instruc-
tions that all vacancies should be filled without delay. All the appointing
authorities were directed to ensure that the panel were prepared promptly in
the month of September every year. However, contrary to the rules. and
instructions, a panel or a list of approved candidates was not prepared in
September 1976. In fact, the panel was drawn up only in the year 1977 by
G which time, the aforesaid rules were amended on and from 22nd March, 1977.
The grievance of the petitioners· was that contrary to the rules and also specific
instructions of the Government, preparation of list of approved candidates ·was
delayed as a result of which they were adversely affected. In the facts and
circumstances of that case. It was held by this Court that the posts which fell·
H vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules.
.
U.0.1. v. S.S. UPPAL [SEN, J.] 237
The facts in the case before us are entirely different. There has been no A
)
infraction of any rule or violation of any instruction issued by the Government.
Respondent No. 1 has not been able tu point out any violation of rules or
regulations on the part of the Government by which he was prejudicially
affected.

The case of S.L.Kaul and Others v. Secreta1y to Govenunent of' India, B
[1989] Supp 1 SCC 147 dealt with a problem of seniority arising out of

-
upgradation of posts of Monitors in All India Radio. The posts of Monitor
were ·rcdesignated as Sub-Editors (Monitoring) and were brought at par with
those in grade IV of the Central Information Service. Although the posts of
Monitor were redesignated and the pay-scales attached to the posts were C
enhanced to that of Grade IV posts, the relevant schedules of Central
Information Service Rules .were not amended for a considerable period of
time. This Court held that the Monitors could not be allowed to suffer for the
lapse on the part of the Government and that the delay in amending the
schedules to the Rules should not be allowed to prejudice the seniority of the
Monitors in any manner. The Union of India was justified in fixing the inter D
se seniority of the Monitors with effect from 29th June, 1968 when the posts
were upgraded and became equivalent to Grade IV posts of Central Informa-
tion Service. Since the posts of the Monitor were upgraded with effect from
29th June, 1968, they were rightly placed as seniors to the persons who were
recruited in 1969 and 1970. E
This case again does not thiow any light on the controversy raised
before us. Uppal was being taken into Administrative Service. He was actually
inducted into the service on 15th February, 1989. The rufos which were in
force on.th.at day for determination of seniority will clearly apply to his case.
It is true that Uppal' s name was included in a panel drawn up some time in F
August, 1988. But mere inclusion of his name in the panel did not confer upon
him any right to automatic appointment to the I.A.S. Nor can it be said that
he was to be treated as to have been appointed .from the date when a suitable
post fell vacant. It has been stated in the affidavit filed before the tribunal by
Shri Hari Singh, Under Secretary to the Government of India that although a G
vacancy had arisen on !st February, 1989, the proposal for appointment of
Uppal .to LA.S. was received from the State Government only on 14th
February, 1989. The seniority of an officer appointed into the l.A.S. is
determined according to the seniority rules applicable on the date of appoint-
ment to the I.A.S.-Weightage in seniority cannot be given retrospective effect
H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.
A unless it was specifically provided in the rule in force at the material time. In
the case of Shankarasan Dash v. Union qf India, JT (1991) (2) S.C. 380, it
was pointed out by this Court that the existence of vacancies did not give any
legal right to a selected candidate.

We are of the view, in the facts of this case and also having regard to
B the relevant rules, it cannot be said that seniority of Uppal will have to be
decided in accordance with the seniority rules which were in force before the
amendments were made on 3rd February, 1989. The appeal is, therefore,
allowed. The judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jabalpur dated 12th January, 1995 is set aside. Each party will pay and bear
C its own costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.