M V CHANDRAKANTH vs HOME AFFAIRS
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00427/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 07.10.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 23.10.2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sri. M.V. Chandrakanth,
S/o Late Venkatashami,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Additional Director, Vigilance and IT,
Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,
Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560 051,
Residing at 10/1, Vajra Ganga,
rd
4 E Cross, 3 Block, HRBR Layout,
Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore – 560 043. …Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Satish K)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Police – I Division (IPS-I Section),
North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
2
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Delhi – 110 069.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
4. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel Administration and Reforms,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel for
Respondent No.1, Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel for
Respondent No.2, Shri Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for Respondents No.
3 and 4)
O R D E R
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This OA has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:-
“I) Call for records from the respondents pertaining to
the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 (Annexure – A23);
II) Issue writ or order quashing the impugned order dated
25/08/2022 bearing No. F. No. I-15011/07/2020 IPS-I (E)
passed by the Respondent No. 1 in so far as the year of
allotment of the applicant as 2013 in the cadre of Indian
Police Service is concerned (Annexure – A23), in the
interest of justice and equity;
III) Direct the Respondent No.1 to fix the seniority of
the applicant in the cadre of Indian Police Service as
against Select List – 2015 and assign the year of allotment
as 2012 and grant all consequential benefits, which would
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
3
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
flow from such assignment of year of allotment, in the
interest of justice and equity.
IV) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon’ble
Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, including the cost of this application.”
2. These reliefs are claimed on the following grounds and legal
provisions:-
“5.1) The impugned order dated 25/08/2022 is so far as
assigning year of allotment as 2013 is wholly illegal and
contrary to Rules, 1988 (ANNEXURE - A25). The Rules,
1988 regulates the method by which seniority is considered
and provided to the officers belonging to the Indian Police
Service. The Rule 3 (3) (ii) provides for the year of
allotment to a promotee officer. The impugned order passed
by the Respondent No. 1 dated 25/08/2022 fixing the
seniority/ year of allotment of the Applicant appointed on
promotion from State Police Service quota as the year 2013
is contrary to the Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1988. The Rule
3 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1988 is 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 these rules.
(2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at
the commencement of these rules shall be the same as
has been assigned to him or may be assigned to him
by the Central Government in accordance with the
rules, orders and instructions in force immediately
before the commencement of these rules.
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to
the service after the commencement of these rules
shall be as follows: -
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
4
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(i) the year of allotment of a direct recruit officer
shall be the year following the year in which the
competitive examination was held:
*(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer
shall be determined with reference to the "Year for
which" ## the meeting of the Committee to make
selection, to prepare the Select List on the basis of
which he was appointed to the Service, was held
and with regard to the continuous service rendered
by him in the State Police Service not below the
rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or
equivalent, upto the 31st day of December of the
year immediately before the "Year for which"##
the meeting of the Committee to make selection was
held to prepare the select list on the basis of which
he was appointed to the Service, in the following
manner:-
( a) for the service rendered by him upto twenty one
years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for
every completed three years of service, subject to a
minimum of four years:
(b) He shall also be given a weightage of one year
for every completed two years of service beyond the
period of twenty one years, referred to in sub-
clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years.
Explanation: For the purpose of calculation of
weightage under this clause, fractions, if any, are
to be ignored.
Provided that he shall not be assigned a year of
allotment earlier than the year of allotment
assigned to an officer senior to him in that select
list or appointed to the service on the basis of an
earlier select list.
The above Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1988 provides for the
method in which the year of allotment to a promotee officer
shall be determined with reference to the year for which the
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
5
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
meeting of committee to make selection, to prepare the
select list on the basis of which he was appointed to service
was held and with regard to the continuous service
rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the
rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent
rank. Additionally, Rule 3 (3) (ii) (a) provides for the
manner in which weightage shall be given for the service
rendered in the State Police Service. As per the rule, every
promotee officer for the service rendered by them up to
twenty-one years, shall be given a weightage of one year for
every completed three years of service, subject to a
minimum of four years. In the instant case, the Applicant
has served for a period of 9 years from the year 2006 to
2015, so considering the weightage, he shall be eligible for
3 years of weightage for the service rendered by him in the
State Police Service. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 has
failed to consider the same while passing the impugned
order whereunder the Applicant is assigned with the
allotment year as 2013 whereas he should be assigned with
the allotment year as 2012. The Respondent No. 1 without
application of mind and without considering the above
aspect has passed the impugned order dated 25/08/2022
assigning the year of allotment to the Applicant as 2013.
Therefore, on this ground alone, the Impugned order dated
25/08/2022 is liable to be set aside.
5.2) The impugned order dated 25/08/2022 issued by
the Respondent No. 1 is contrary to the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in
Application No. 1866/2021 dated 13/08/2021. The
undisputed fact is that the Applicant was initially appointed
as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2006
thereafter was appointed as Assistant Commissioner/
Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) on
24/03/2017. The proposal emanates on 30/05/2017 for
preparation of Select List 2015 for promotion to Indian
Police Service. However, his name was deleted from the
proposal and his batch mates were conferred Indian Police
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
6
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Service on 21/07/2017 against Select List 2015 and they
were assigned the year of allotment as 2012 vide order
dated 21/08/2020. After losing the legal battle before the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal
No. 100388/2017, the lien of the Applicant is reverted to the
cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 24/05/2021.
The validity of the order dated 24/05/2021 was tested before
the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which
in turn directed the Respondent to revive the lien of the
Applicant in the Department of Home and extend all
consequential benefits to which he would be legally entitled
to as if he is continued in the Department of Home with
effect from 31/01/2006. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled
for all the benefits including seniority and year of allotment.
Though the Application No. 1866/2021 was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
substantial relief of revival of lien in the Department of
Home and consequential benefits such as seniority was
directed to be restored by the Hon'ble Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal. In fact, the Respondent Nos. 3 and
4 have revived the lien of the Applicant and restored the
seniority in his favour. However, while conferring Indian
Police Service his case is considered against Select List
2016 instead of Select List 2015.
5.3) The action of the Respondents denying the
assignment of year of allotment as 2012 is contrary to law.
The juniors of the Applicant have been assigned year of
allotment as 2012 vide order dated 21/08/2020 whereas the
Applicant is given the year of allotment as 2013. The
seniority of the Applicant would be seriously affected for
further promotion and it would dent his career. When the
proposal is sent in the year 2017 for Indian Police Service,
the same was denied to the Applicant and when the
Applicant is conferred with Indian Police Service, the
seniority is denied perpetuating the illegality. Therefore, the
action of the Respondents is contrary to Articles 14 and 16
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
7
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set
aside,
5.4) It is further contended that the assignment of the
year of allotment shall be regulated having regard to the
service rendered by the official in the State Police Service,
not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Admittedly, the name of the Applicant was included in the
Select List of the year 2015 for promotion to Indian Police
Service Cadre. The meeting of the selection committee was
also held on 04/07/2017 approving the select list of the year
2015 under Regulation 7 (3) of Indian Police Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 to fill up 36
vacancies in the Karnataka Cadre of the Indian Police
Service. Rule 3 (3) (ii) of Rules, 1988 regulates the
assignment of year of allotment of a promotee officer and it
shall be determined with reference to the year for which
meeting of the committee to make selection, to prepare
select list on the basis of which he was appointed to service,
was held and with regard to continuous service rendered by
him in the State Police Service not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. However, at that time he was
appointed to the Karnataka Administrative Service under
the notification dated 24/03/2017. Though the name of the
Applicant was included for promotion to Indian
Administrative Service subsequently his name was deleted
for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service cadre
under the letter dated 11/08/2020. Consequent to the
direction issued by the Hon'ble Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 1866/2021, the
lien of the Applicant is revived in the cadre of Deputy
Superintendent of Police in the Department of Home,
extending all consequential benefits to which he would have
been legally entitled. The principles laid down in the case of
BALRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS V. DR. ASHOK
KHEMKA, I.A.S. , and others reported in 2008 (5) SLR 758
would squarely apply to the facts of this case. The Division
Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
8
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
gives a categorical finding that the year of allotment of a
promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the
year for which the meeting of the committee was held for
making selection. Therefore, the year of allotment assigned
to the Applicant under the impugned order dated
25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 cannot be
sustained in law and is contrary to the Rule 3 (3) (ii) of
Rules, 1988.
5.5) It is contended that the impugned order passed by
the Respondent No. 1 is even contrary to the proposal sent
by the State Government. The State Government way back
in the year 2017 itself had sent a proposal to the Selection
Committee for preparation of the Select List of 2015 for
promotion to Indian Police Service (Karnataka Cadre). The
Respondent No. 2 directed the State Government to exclude
the name of the Applicant from the eligibility list for
preparation of the Select List 2015 for promotion to the
Indian Police Service Cadre as his service in Karnataka
Police Service was treated as Karnataka Administrative
Service at that time. On this ground as well, the impugned
order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is
liable to be set aside.
5.6) It is further contended that seniority and
promotion must be determined in accordance with the
statutory rules governing the service and any deviation from
such rules violates the principles of equality and fairness
which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority)
Rules, 1988_is the statutory rules based on which seniority
shall be determined of the officers belonging to the Indian
Police Service. The Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Indian Police
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 makes it clear
as to how the allotment years are assigned to officers. In the
instant case, the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 deviates
from these statutory rules by arbitrarily assigning the year
2013 as the year of allotment to the Applicant in the cadre
of Indian Police Service. This arbitrary fixation of seniority
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
9
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
without adherence to the statutory rules violates the
Applicant's rights and undermines the principles of equality
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent
No. 1 is one without authority of law, arbitrary, illegal and
is liable to be set at naught at the hands of this Hon'ble
Tribunal.
5.7) The Applicant further contends that his juniors
have been selected under the Select List 2015, with their
year of allotment/ seniority fixed as 2012. In contrast,
despite being eligible and having maintained an
unblemished service record, the Applicant has been unjustly
denied similar consideration for promotion under the same
Select List 2015. This disparity not only undermines the
Applicant's seniority and entitlement but also violates the
principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of
India, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public
employment. By promoting his juniors while neglecting his
rightful claim to promotion, the Respondents have acted
arbitrarily and unfairly, deviating from statutory rules and
established norms governing promotions within the civil
services. This differential treatment based on arbitrary
grounds rather than merit or seniority constitutes a clear
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates
equality before the law. The Applicant is fully entitled to be
considered under the Select List 2015 and not 2016 and for
fixation of seniority/year of allotment as 2012 and not 2013.
Therefore, on this ground as well, the impugned order dated
25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent assigning the year of
allotment to the Applicant as 2013 is liable to be set aside.
5.8) The Applicant submits that he has diligently served
in all his capacities with an unblemished record and has
fulfilled all eligibility criteria for promotion to higher posts.
Despite his exemplary service and merit, the Applicant has
been unfairly deprived of rightful seniority and promotional
opportunities, solely due to administrative delays and
arbitrary decisions of the Respondents. The denial of
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
10
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
seniority and consequential benefits to the Applicant, while
his juniors have been promoted and seniority re-fixed, is not
only discriminatory but also illegal and violative of his
fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution of
India. The impugned action of the Respondents, in failing to
regularize the Applicant's seniority in accordance with
statutory rules and administrative norms, have caused grave
prejudice to him. Such arbitrary actions undermine the
principles of natural justice and fairness enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Applicant
seeks redressal from this Hon'ble Court to rectify the
unlawful denial of seniority and consequential benefits and
to ensure that his rights to equality and fair treatment are
upheld in accordance with the law.
5.9) Even otherwise the action on the part of the
Respondents is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The Applicant
craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise all and such
other contentions available to him, in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, in the interest of justice
and equity.”
3. The brief fact of the applicant as mentioned in the synopsis is
following:-
“
Sl.
Date Particulars
No.
1 1988 The Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988
came into force and it regulates the seniority of the officers belonging
to the Indian Police Service.
2 1999 The Karnataka Public Service Commission issued a notification
calling for applications for the post of Gazetted Probationers. The
Applicant has applied to the said post and pursuant to the rigorous
written test and oral interview, the Applicant emerged as a successful
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
11
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
candidate. The Applicant has secured 1151 marks and one Sri.
Sangappa secured 1152 marks, claiming under 2A category was
selected to the post of Karnataka Administrative Service (Group-A)
(Junior Scale).
3 29/11/2005 The Applicant was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police under
2A category. The names of Sri. Jagadisha G. and Sri. Sangappa who
have been appointed under 2A category finds place at Serial No. 14
and 15 under the post called Assistant Commissioner. The name of
the Applicant finds place at Serial No. 6 under Deputy
Superintendent of Police category.
4 05/12/2005 The said Sri. Sangappa does not belong to 2A category and he has
falsely claimed such reservation. The Applicant has challenged the
caste certificate issued in favour of Sri. Sangappa before the
Appellate Authority and it granted an interim Order of Stay of the
validity certificate issued in favour of Sri. Sangappa.
5 23/01/2006 The caste certificate issued to Sri. Sangappa was set aside by the
Appellate Authority for verification of caste and income certificate,
Bangalore.
6 NIL In response, Sri. Sangappa approached the Hon'ble High Court in
Writ Petition No. 1449/2006 challenging the order dated 23/01/2006
and the Hon'ble High Court granted an interim Order of Status Quo in
the year 2006. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition
preferred by Sri. Sangappa against which he approached the Division
Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, overturning the Learned
Single Judge's decision, a ruling which was subsequently affirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7 04/07/2013 Based on seniority cum merit, the Applicant was promoted to the post
of Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS).
8 NIL However, the Applicant was unjustly denied selection and
appointment to the Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale)
in the year 2006 despite him being meritorious in the 2A category.
Instead, he was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police rather
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
12
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
than Assistant Commissioner.
9 24/03/2017 The 3rd Respondent after examining the matter afresh, the matter was
placed before the cabinet for taking appropriate decision.
Accordingly, the cabinet has taken a decision create to a
supernumerary post in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service
(Junior Scale) aligning with the notification which was issued in the
year 1999 and the Applicant is appointed to the said post. The Order
is very clear that the Applicant is entitled for all the benefits with
effect from 01/02/2006 and is appointed to the cadre of Karnataka
Administrative Service (Junior Scale).
10 30/03/2017 Pursuant to the said Order, the Applicant has reported for duty before
the 4th Respondent.
11 31/03/2017 The Order dated 24/03/2017 states that seniority of the Applicant is to
be fixed in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior
Scale) and there is no action taken by the Respondent No. 3 and 4.
Immediately, the Applicant has made a representation requesting the
Respondents No. 3 and 4 to fix the seniority with effect from
01/02/2006 and consequently promotion to the post of Senior Scale
with retrospective dated from 17/09/2011.
12 31/03/2017 The probationary period of the Applicant is declared as satisfactory in
the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale). The
period of probation of two years is reduced in view of the service
rendered by the Applicant in the State Government and consequently,
the probationary period is declared as satisfactory.
13 30/05/2017 In the meanwhile, the batch mates of the Applicant who were
appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police were considered for
conferring Indian Police Service. The Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter
to the Respondent No. 3 stating that the Applicant is not borne in the
Police Department and therefore exclude his name for conferring
Indian Police Service since his service is treated as Karnataka
Administrative Service.
14 21/07/2017 After thorough verification, his batch mates Sri. Joshi Srinath
Mahadev and others were inducted into Indian Police Service.
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
13
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
15 15/12/2017 With these facts, the Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court in
Original Application No. 237/2017 seeking for a direction to consider
his promotion case for to the post of Indian Administrative Service
since he is entitled for all the consequential benefits provided under
the Government Order dated 24/03/2017. This Hon'ble Court was
pleased to allow the said Original Application No. 237/2017 and
directed to convene a Review Selection committee meeting and to
place the name of the Applicant alongside Sri. G. Jagadisha.
16 08/02/2018 Subsequently, the Order of this Hon'ble Court in Original Application
No. 237/2017 was challenged before the Division Bench of the
Hon'ble High Court by Smt. K. S. Latha Kumari and others in Writ
Petition No. 1252-1256/2018. The Division Bench allowed the Writ
Petition on 08/02/2018, setting aside the Order of this Hon'ble
Tribunal in Original Application No. 237/2017.
17 23/02/2018 Accordingly, the juniors of the Applicant - Smt. K. M. Janaki, Smt.
Sathyabhama and Smt. K. S. Lalita Kumari among others, were
promoted to the Indian Administrative Service against vacancies
from the year 2015.
18 14/05/2018 The Respondent No. 4 prepared and published the Seniority List in
the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) and
(Senior Scale), inserting the name of the Applicant at Serial No.
1222-A and 601-A respectively in between Sri. Jagadisha G and Smt.
Janaki K. M.
19 12/03/2019 The 3rd Respondent by its letter sent a proposal for promotion of the
Applicant and 23 other candidates against the 11 vacancies
determined for preparation of the Select List - 2016. In the Annexure
to the said proposal, the name of the Applicant finds place at Sl. No.
1.
20 03/09/2019 The 4th Respondent published the provisional seniority list in the
cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Senior Scale) pursuant to
the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. K.
PAVITHRA-II The name of the Applicant finds place at Serial No.
598 and his name is shown in between Sri. Jagadisha G and Smt.
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
14
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Janaki K. M.
21 20/09/2019 The Applicant has been promoted to the post of Karnataka
Administrative Service (Senior Scale).
22 21/10/2019 The Applicant has made a representation to the Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 with a request to consider his case for promotion to the post of
Indian Administrative Service for the Select List of 2015 since his
juniors are already promoted to the said post and seniority is re-fixed.
23 05/12/2019 The Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court in Application No.
1321/2019 seeking for a direction to the Respondents to consider the
case of the Applicant for promotion to the post of Indian
Administrative Service by convening Revised Selection committee
meeting and to promote him to the said post with retrospective date
from the date his juniors are promoted i.e. 23/02/2018 and for such
other reliefs.
24 13/02/2020 The said Application No. 1321/2019 was resisted by the Respondent
No. 3 and 4 by filing the statement of objection wherein at para 4, it
was categorically admitted that the name of the Applicant has already
nd
been submitted to the 2 respondent for promotion to the cadre of
Indian Administrative Service.
25 28/02/2020 Considering the said submission, this Hon'ble Court, leaving open the
question of considering the case of the Applicant in the earlier batch,
nd
directed the 2 Respondent to decide on the suitability of the
Applicant for promotion to the cadre of Indian Administrative
Service within a period of 1 month.
26 30/04/2020 Despite the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the 2nd Respondent
did not convene the selection committee meeting and did not consider
the case of the Applicant and therefore, the 3rd Respondent once
again made a request to the 2nd Respondent to convene the Selection
Committee meeting for the Select List 2016.
27 26/06/2020 It appears that, once again, a letter along with a self-contained note
was addressed to the 2nd Respondent reiterating the contents in the
proposal dated 12/03/2019.
28 11/08/2020 In response to the said letter, the 2nd Respondent has written to the
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
15
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3rd Respondent whereunder at Para 2 (ii), the 2nd Respondent has
categorically directed the 3rd Respondent to exclude the name of the
Applicant from the eligibility list submitted under the proposal dated
12/03/2019.
29 21/08/2020 In the meanwhile, the seniority/year of allotment was processed in
respect of batch mates who were conferred Indian Police Service vide
order dated 21/07/2017 was taken up by Respondent No. 1 and Sri.
Joshi Srinath Mahadev and others were given year of allotment as
2012 as against the Select List for the year 2014-2015.
30 31/03/2021 The prolonged legal battle between Sri. Sangappa and the Applicant
with regard to validity of caste certificate culminated in Writ Appeal
No. 100388/2017 (GM-CC) before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court. The Hon'ble High Court allowed Writ Appeal No.
100388/2017 and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 1449/2006 was set aside and as a result the original
order dated 23/01/2006 cancelling the caste certificate was quashed.
31 24/05/2021 The appointment of the Applicant to the cadre of Karnataka
Administrative Service (Junior Scale) was rescinded and his lien is
fixed in the original cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the
Respondent No. 4 on account of order passed in Writ Appeal No.
100388/2017.
32 05/08/2021 The seniority of the Applicant is refixed in the cadre Of Deputy
Superintendent of Police at Serial. No. 775 between Sri. Devaraj D
and Smt. Siri Gowri D. R.
33 13/08/2021 The Applicant has questioned the order dated 24/05/2021 in
Application No. 1866/2021 before the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the
Application affirming the order dated 24/05/2021 and issued
direction to revive the lien of the Applicant in the Department of
Home in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and to assign
the Applicant appropriate rank and seniority, had he continued to
work continuously in the Department of Home since the date of his
appointment to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police on
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
16
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
31/01/2006 and to extend all consequential benefits to which would
have been legally entitled.
34 13/08/2021 The Applicant made a representation to the Department of Home
requesting to send a proposal to the Respondent No. 2 for promotion
to Indian Police Service in the Select List of 2015.
35 NIL The Respondent No. 1 considering his representation requested the
Respondent No. 4 to submit all original documents for consideration
of his case to the Indian Police Service for the Select List of the year
2015.
36 13/10/2021 The Respondent No. 4 sent request letter to Respondent No. 2 for
consideration of the case of the Applicant for promotion to Indian
Police Service in the Select List of year 2015.
37 10/12/2021 The Respondent No.1 issued a notification notifying the name of the
Applicant as per the Select List of the year 2016 for Indian Police
Service. The name of the Applicant is at Sl. No. 1 against the Select
List - 2016.
38 28/06/2022 The Applicant made a representation to the Respondent No. 4
requesting to consider his case for fixing seniority and year of
allotment as 2012 and further made a request to send the proposal in
this regard to the Respondent No. 1.
39 29/07/2022 The Applicant tossed the order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.
7241/2021 and the challenge against the order of the Division Bench
of the Hon'ble High Court remained unsuccessful.
40 25/08/2022 When things stood thus, the Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned
order whereunder the seniority of the Applicant is fixed in the cadre
of Indian Police Service and he has been allotted 2013 as the year of
allotment.
41 10/07/2023 The Applicant made representation to the Respondent No. 3 with a
request to consider his year of allotment as 2012. However, there is
no reply received for the said representation submitted by the
Applicant for assigning year of allotment for the cadre of Indian
Police Service, Karnataka Cadre as the year of 2012 till today.
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
17
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
The Applicant has filed the instant Application
seeking to quash the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 by
the 1st Respondent whereunder the Applicant has been
assigned with the year of allotment as 2013 which is
contrary to the Indian Police Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1988 and for such other reliefs among the
following grounds:
i) The impugned order dated 25/08/2022 is so far as
assigning year of allotment as 2013 is wholly illegal and
contrary to Rules, 1988. The Rules, 1988 regulates the
method by which seniority is considered and provided to the
officers belonging to the Indian Police Service. The Rule 3
(3) (ii) provides for the year of allotment to a promotee
officer. The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1
dated 25/08/2022 fixing the seniority/ year of allotment of
the Applicant appointed on promotion from State Police
Service quota as the year 2013 is contrary to the Rule 3 (3)
(ii) of the Rules, 1988.
ii) As per the rule, every promotee officer for the service
rendered by them up to twenty-one years, shall be given a
weightage of one year for every completed three years of
service, subject to a minimum of four years. In the instant
case, the Applicant has served for a period of 9 years from
the year 2006 to 2015, so considering the weightage, he
shall be eligible for 3 years of weightage for the service
rendered by him in the State Police Service. Therefore, the
Respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the same while
passing the impugned order whereunder the Applicant is
assigned with the allotment year as 2013 whereas he should
be assigned with the allotment year as 2012. The
Respondent No. 1 without application of mind and without
considering the above aspect has passed the impugned
order dated 25/08/2022 assigning the year of allotment to
the Applicant as 2013.
iii) The action of the Respondents denying the
assignment of year of allotment as 2012 is contrary to law.
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
18
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
The juniors of the Applicant have been assigned year of
allotment as 2012 vide order dated 21/08/2020 whereas the
Applicant is given the year of allotment as 2013. The
seniority of the Applicant would seriously affect for further
promotion and it would dent his career. When the proposal
is sent in the year 2017 for Indian Police Service, the same
was denied to the Applicant and when the Applicant is
conferred with Indian Police Service, the seniority is denied
perpetuating the illegality.
iv) The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is
even contrary to the proposal sent by the State Government.
The State Government way back in the year 2017 itself had
sent a proposal to the Selection Committee for preparation
of the Select List of 2015 for promotion to Indian Police
Service (Karnataka Cadre). The Respondent No. 2 directed
the State Government to exclude the name of the Applicant
from the eligibility list for preparation of the Select List
2015 for promotion to the Indian Police Service Cadre as
his service in was Karnataka Police Service was treated as
Karnataka Administrative Service at that time.
v) Seniority and promotion must be determined in
accordance with the statutory rules governing the service
and any deviation from such rules violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Indian Police Service (Regulation
of Seniority) Rules, 1988 is the statutory rules based on
which seniority shall be determined of the officers belonging
to the Indian Police Service. In the instant case, the
impugned order dated 25/08/2022 deviates from these
statutory rules by arbitrarily assigning the year 2013 as the
year of allotment to the Applicant in the cadre of Indian
Police Service.
vi) The juniors of the Applicant have been selected under the
Select List 2015, with their year of allotment/seniority fixed
as 2012. In contrast, despite being eligible and having
maintained an unblemished service record, the Applicant
has been unjustly denied similar consideration for
promotion under the same Select List 2015. This disparity
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
19
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
not only undermines the Applicant's seniority and
entitlement but also violates the principles enshrined in
Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Applicant being
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed
by the Respondent No. 1 assigning the Applicant with year
of allotment as 2013 presents this Application.”
4. On notice, Respondent No.1 has filed the reply statement.
Then Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their reply statement and
then Respondent No.2 has filed the reply statement separately. List of
citations have been filed and MA No. 418/2024 has been filed for
condonation of delay, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide its
order dated 27.01.2025. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 07.10.2026. Shri Satish
K for the applicant, Shri S. Prakash Shetty for Respondent No.1, Shri
N. Amaresh for Respondent No.2 and Shri Mahantesh Shettar for
Respondents No. 3 and 4 were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and
considered the rival contentions. Facts of the case are not contested.
7. The Applicant has filed this Original Application challenging
only the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure–A23) issued by
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which assigned
his year of allotment as 2013 and determined his seniority in the
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
20
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Indian Police Service (IPS) pursuant to the Select List of 2016, in
terms of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1988. The Applicant seeks assignment of the year of
allotment as 2012 on par with officers junior to him in the State Police
Service who were inducted against the Select List of 2015. The
Applicant has not challenged either the Select List of 2015 or his own
inclusion in the Select List of 2016 via notification dated 10.12.2021
(Annexure–A21).
8. Undisputed Factual Matrix
Selection & Service : The Applicant appeared for the Gazetted
Probationers examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service
Commission in 1999. Following the select list published on
29.11.2005 (Annexure–A1), the Applicant secured 1151 marks in
Category 2A and was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in
the Karnataka Police Service. Sri Sangappa, securing 1152 marks in
Category 2A, was appointed to the Karnataka Administrative Service
(Junior Scale).
Caste Certificate Litigation : The Applicant challenged Sri
Sangappa’s 2A caste certificate. Upon setting aside of the certificate
by the Appellate Authority on 23.01.2006, Sri Sangappa approached
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 1449/2006. The
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
21
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Single Judge dismissed the petition; however, the Division Bench in
Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017 reversed that decision, quashing the
cancellation order. The decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 29.07.2022 in SLP (Civil) No. 7241/2021, settling
the caste certificate dispute in Sri Sangappa’s favour.
Supernumerary KAS Appointment & Repatriation : Pending
litigation, the State Government created a supernumerary post in the
KAS (Junior Scale) and appointed the Applicant vide Government
Order No. DPAR 86 ASD 2016 (P-1) dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure–
A2) with effect from 01.02.2006, subject to the final outcome in W.P.
No. 1449/2006. Consequent to the final judgment in Sri Sangappa's
favour, the Applicant's KAS appointment was rescinded, and his lien
was restored to his original cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police
vide order dated 24.05.2021.
KSAT Proceedings : The Applicant challenged the order dated
24.05.2021 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in
Application No. 1866/2021. By order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure–
A18), the Tribunal upheld the reversion, revived his lien in the
Department of Home from 31.01.2006, and directed the assignment of
appropriate rank, seniority, and consequential legal benefits as if he
had served uninterruptedly in the Department of Home.
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
22
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
IPS Induction : Following repatriation, the State Government
submitted proposals to the Union Public Service Commission. The
Applicant was subsequently included at Serial No. 1 in the Select List
of 2016 for promotion to the IPS (Karnataka Cadre) vide notification
dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure–A21).
Impugned Seniority Determination : By order dated 25.08.2022
(Annexure–A23), Respondent No. 1 determined the Applicant's year
of allotment as 2013 under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the 1988 Rules, reckoning
10 years of qualifying continuous service (from 31.01.2006) up to
31.12.2015.
9. Statutory Provisions & Analysis of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 :
The applicant has relied the 1988 Rule, which is:-
“(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the
service after the commencement of these rules shall be as
follows: -
(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be
determined with reference to the “year for which” the
meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the
Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the
Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service
rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the
rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent,
upto the 31st day of December of the year immediately
before the “year for which” the meeting of the Committee to
make selection was held to prepare the select list on the
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
23
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the
following manner:-
(a) for the service rendered by him upto twenty one
years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for
every completed three years of service, subject to a
minimum of four years:
(b) He shall also be given a weightage of one year for
every completed two years of service beyond the period
of twenty one years, referred to in sub-clause (a),
subject to a maximum of three years.
Explanation: For the purpose of calculation of weightage
under this clause, fractions, if any, are to be ignored.
Provided that he shall not be assigned a year of allotment
earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer
senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service
on the basis of an earlier select list.”
However, in their reply statement the respondents have relied the
Rule 3(3)(ii) amended as on 18.04.2012, which is:-
“3. Assignment of year of allotment- (1) Every officer shall
be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the
provisions hereinafter contained in these rules.
(2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at the
commencement of these rules shall be the same as has been
assigned to him or may be assigned to him by the Central
Government in accordance with the rules, orders and
instructions in force immediately before the commencement
of these rules.
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the
service after the commencement of these rules shall be as
follows:
(i) The year of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be
the year following the year in which the competitive
examination was held:
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
24
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
1Provided that if a direct recruit officer, other than an
exempted probationer within the meaning of Cl. (ee) of Rule
2 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, who
is permitted to join probationary training under sub-rule (1)
of Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules,
1954 with the direct recruit officers of subsequent year of
allotment, then he shall be assigned that subsequent year as
the year of allotment.
(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be
determined with reference to the year in which the meeting of
the Committee to make selection, to prepare the Select List on
the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held
and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in
the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police or equivalent, up to the 31st date of
December of the year 3[] in which the meeting of the *
Committee to make selection was held to prepare the Select
List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in
the following manner:-
4[(a) for the service rendered by him upto twelve years,
he shall be given a weightage of one year for every
completed four years of service, subject to a minimum of
three years;
(b) for the service rendered by him beyond 12 years, as
referred to in sub-clause (a)and upto 21 years, he shall
be given a weightage of one year for every completed
three years of service;
(c) for the service rendered by him beyond 21 years, as
referred to in sub-clause (b), he shall be given a
weightage of one year for every completed two years of
service, subject to a maximum of three years.]
Applying these rules based on the above amendment, the
weighted formula will be as follows:-
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
25
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Completed years of
Weightage in years
qualifying service
12 3 (Minimum)
15 4
18 5
21 6
23 7
25 8
27 9 (Maximum)
As no rejoinder has been filed, hence, we consider that the rule
position applicable to the applicant is the amended rule as on
18.04.2012 as filed by the Respondent No.1 and this formula is
applicable. Hence, for 2016 Select year allottee of Indian Police
Service who has been appointed in the year 2006, having 10 years of
service (which facts are not disputed) can get a maximum weightage
of 3 years and accordingly, the 2016 Select Year allottee will get the
Indian Police Service seniority of 2013 as has been given in the
impugned order.
Statutory Application : The statutory formula establishes that the year
of allotment of a promotee officer cannot be determined in isolation
from the Select List year on the basis of which the officer was
appointed. For an appointment under the Select List of 2016 with 10
years of completed qualifying service as of 31.12.2015, the weightage
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
26
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
allowable is 3 years. Subtracting 3 years from the Select List year of
2016 yields 2013.
Effect of Non-Challenge to Select List : The Applicant rests his claim
for the year of allotment 2012 on the allotment assigned to officers
junior to him who were inducted against the Select List of 2015.
However, the Applicant has neither challenged the 2015 Select List,
nor his own appointment under the Select List of 2016 (Notification
dated 10.12.2021). In the absence of a direct challenge to the
underlying selection/Select List year, the Tribunal cannot, in
proceedings confined solely to an allotment order under the 1988
Rules, re-determine seniority as if the Applicant had been appointed
under an earlier Select List. It is left to the applicant, if he is so
advised to challenge those underlying IPS Appointment orders
under the Select List of 2015 or 2016.
10. Consideration of Grounds Urged in Paragraph 5
Group 1: Statutory Formula & Rules (Grounds in Paragraphs
5.1, 5.4, and 5.6)
Contentions : The Applicant submitted that the impugned order
violates Rule 3(3)(ii) of the 1988 Rules, Article 14 of the Constitution,
and the principles laid down in Balraj Singh and Others v. Dr. Ashok
Khemka, I.A.S., and others [2008 (5) SLR 758], arguing that the year
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
27
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
of allotment must be computed strictly with reference to continuous
service in the State Police Service.
Findings : The respondents strictly applied the statutory formula: 10
years of qualifying service against the Select List of 2016 gives a
weightage of 3 years, resulting in 2013. No mathematical or
computational error exists under Rule 3(3)(ii). The distinction
between promotion selection regulations and seniority rules is
material; allotment must follow the actual Select List year under
which induction occurred. We do not find the order of Balraj Singh
(supra) helps the applicant in any way, as the order of assignment of
seniority in IPS is strictly as per rule and fact that he has got 2016
Select List of IPS.
Group 2: Equal Treatment & Denial of Benefit Relative to Juniors
(Grounds in Paragraphs 5.3, 5.7, and 5.8)
Contentions: The Applicant contended that assigning 2013 while his
juniors in the State Police Service (inducted under the 2015 Select
List) were assigned 2012 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, causes prejudice to his promotional prospects, and
penalizes his unblemished service record due to administrative delays.
Findings : Differing years of allotment stem directly from the
differing Select List years (2015 vs. 2016) against which the
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
28
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
respective officers were appointed. While the Applicant's situation
arose from administrative/litigation history, general assertions of
discrimination or an unblemished record cannot override the statutory
formula in the absence of a successful legal challenge to the
underlying 2016 or 2015 Select List notification, which is still open
to the applicant if he is so advised.
Group 3: Inter-State Orders, Proposals & Catch-All Claims
(Grounds in Paragraphs 5.2, 5.5, and 5.9)
Contentions: The Applicant argued that the allotment order is
contrary to the KSAT order in Application No. 1866/2021 (which
restored his lien and directed consequential benefits), conflicts with
the State Government's initial 2017 proposal for the 2015 Select List,
and requested liberty under general assertions of legal error.
Findings : The KSAT order restored the Applicant's lien and extended
consequential benefits as legally permissible under applicable rules,
but did not itself fix a specific IPS allotment year or alter the Select
List year. The 2017 proposal (for 2015 Select List) was superseded
when the Applicant was validly inducted under the 2016 Select List.
The legality of his non-inclusion in the 2015 Select List cannot be
adjudicated indirectly in an application challenging only the
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja
29
OA.No.170/00427/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
subsequent 2022 allotment order of seniority in IPS. General catch-all
assertions establish no independent error.
11. Final Directives & Order:
Having found no error in the application of the statutory formula
under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1988 as amended on 18.04.2012 to the Select List of
2016, we pass the following orders:
ORDER
The Original Application is hereby dismissed.
All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), if any, stand
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
( DR. SANJIV KUMAR ) ( JUSTICE S. SUJATHA )
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
Digitally signed by Mikasha
Suneja
Mikasha Location: CAT Bangalore
Date: 2026.10.29
09:53:59+05'30'
Suneja