Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
D. RADHAKRISHNAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on
January 23, 1995 in OA No.3/92. The admitted position is
that the appellant was appointed to Tamil Nadu State Police
Services by direct recruitment on October 7, l979. He was
transferred and posted as D.C.P., Law & Order, Madras
(South) which is a cadre post, w.e.f. July 27, 1980 and ever
since he had been continuously officiating in the cadre
post. he was included in the select list, for the first
time, on October 26, 1979 approved by the UPSC on December
12, 1979 The same list was continued for the year 1980. But
in the select list for the year l981, he was not included
for want of requisite vacancy allotable to the State cadre.
Consequently, he came to be included again on December 16,
1982 in the select list approved by the UPSC on March 28,
1983. When his seniority was determined, the order of
allotment indicate that 1978 was fixed as his year of
allotment. He questioned the correctness thereof on two
grounds, namely, his non-inclusion in the list for the year
1981 was bad in law; he also contended that since he was
continuously officiating from 1975 and was included in the
select list for the first time in the year 1979, his year of
allotment should be 1975. Both the contentions were
negatived by the Tribunal. The question for consideration,
therefore, is: whether the Tribunal is right in its
conclusion? Rule 3(3) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion)
Seniority Rules reads as under:
"3. Assignment of year of
Allotment.
(1) Every officer shall be assigned
a year of allotment in accordance
with the provisions hereinafter
contained in this rule.
(2) ... ... ... ...
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
(3) The year of allotment of an
officer appointed to the service
after the commencement of these
rules shall be
(a) where the officer is
appointed to the service
on the results of a
competitive examination
the year following the
year in which such
examination was held;
(b) where the officer is
appointed to the service
by promotion in
accordance with rule 9 of
the Recruitment Rules,
the year of allotment of
the junior-most among the
officers recruited to the
service in accordance
with rule 7 of these
Rules who officiated
continuously in a senior
post from a date earlier
than the date of
commencement of such
officiation by the
former.
Provided that the year of allotment
of an officer appointed to the
Service in accordance with Rule 9
of the Recruitment Rules who
started officiating continuously in
a senior post from a cadre earlier
than the date On which any of the
officers recruited to the service,
in accordance with rule 7 of those
Rules, so started officiating shall
be determined ad hoc by the Central
Government in consultation with the
State Government concerned.
Explanation 1 - In respect of an
officer appointed to the service by
promotion in accordance with sub-
rule (1) of rule 9 of the
Recruitment Rules, the period of
his continuous officiation in a
senior post shall for the purposes
of determination of his seniority;
count only from the date of the
inclusion of his name in the select
pist, or from the date of his
officiating appointment to such
senior post whichever is later.
This rule was considered by a Bench of there judges of
this Court in syed khalid Rizvi & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Ors. [(1993) Supp. 3 SCC 575].After an elaborate
consideration in paragraph 21 of the judgment his court had
held as under:
"Thus it is settled law that a
promotee officer appointed
temproarily under Regulation 8 of
promotion Regulations and Rule 9 of
cadre Rules to a cadre post does
not get his / her continuous
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
officiation towards seniority.
seniority would be counted only
from the date on which he/she was
brought into the select-list by the
selection committee in accordance
with Recruitment Rules, promotion
Regulations and seniority Rules and
was approved by the UPSC, appointed
under Rule 9 of Recruitment Rules
and Regulation 9 of Promotion
regulations and has continuously
officiated without break. seniority
would be entitled from the date of
select-list or continuous
officiation whichever is later.
He/She is entitled to appointment
by the central appointment by an
order in writing and also of such
officiation. In that event
seniority would be counted only
from the date, either of his/her
inclusion in the select-list or
from the date of officiation
appointment of the cadre post
whichever is later. By operation of
Explanation 1 to Rule 3(3) (b) of
the seniority Rules, his seniority
will be counted only from either of
the later dates and the necessary
effect is that the entire previous
period of officiation should be
rendered fortuitous and the
appointment as ad hoc appointment
or by local arrangement."
This was again reconsidered by another Bench of two
Judges of this Court in R.R.S. Chouhan & Ors.vs. Union of
India & Ors. [(1995) Supp. 3 SCC 109]. This Court in the
latter judgment has held that in the matter of year of
allotment, the basis should be the ’the sate inclusion or
of continuous officiation, whichever is later. It was held
that where an officer continuously officiating as officer on
special duty, was prompted to the IFS after his name was
included in the select list for the IFS in different years
except in the year immediately preceding the year of his
promotion, assuming that the post of OSD was a senior post,
benefit of such officiation was held to be not available in
assignment of year of allotment to him since he was included
in the select list in the later year by operation of the
explanation ii to rule 3(3) of the rules.
Thus, we hold that the appellant was entitled to his
year of allotment only from the date when he was later
included in the select list in the year 1982. Accordingly,
1978 as his year of allotment was immediately below the
direct recruits in the cadre.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.