Notional seniority warrants relaxation of residency requirements for promotion to All India Services in extraordinary circumstances.

The applicant applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) under Notification No. 5/1998

Although 19 vacancies were notified, the Government arbitrarily restricted appointments to 10

The applicant, being meritorious but excluded, was appointed as a District Employment Officer in 2000

After extensive litigation (APAT, High Court, and Supreme Court), the Supreme Court in 2006 upheld the direction to appoint the remaining 9 candidates, observing that candidates should not suffer for the State's mistake

The applicant was finally appointed as Dy.SP in 2012 and was subsequently granted notional seniority and promotions w.e.f. 19.06.2001 to align with his original batch

However, the respondents refused to consider him for induction into the Indian Police Service (IPS) for the years 2015-2020, citing Regulation 5(2) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which requires eight years of "continuous service" in the feeder post

The Union of India rejected his representation for relaxation of this rule on 16.11.2020, asserting that notional service does not count and the power to relax rules under the 1960 AIS Rules did not apply to State Police officers

During the pendency of this OA, the applicant was routinely inducted into the IPS in 2021

1. Whether the notional appointment of the applicant as Dy.SP w.e.f. 01.06.2001 entitles him to consideration for earlier Select List years or an appropriate Year of Allotment in the IPS

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s representation by the Government of India, regarding relaxation of eligibility criteria, is legally sustainable

The court primarily applied Regulation 5(2) of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which stipulates a mandatory eight years of continuous service for promotion to IPS

It further relied on Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service – Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, which empowers the Central Government to relax rules or regulations to mitigate "undue hardship" in just and equitable cases

The Tribunal invoked the principle from Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria (2000) 3 SCC 553, establishing that "regular service" can include notional promotion and does not strictly require actual physical service

Additionally, it followed the Madras High Court’s ruling in UOI v. Mr. John Nicholson (W.P. No. 1305/2010), which held that notional service must be counted for IPS allotment where the delay in appointment was due to administrative irregularities

The Tribunal observed that the delay in the applicant's appointment was entirely attributable to the State's error, a fact previously confirmed by the Supreme Court

Since the State Government had already granted notional seniority as Dy.SP from 2001 and subsequent notional promotions to Addl. SP and SP (Non-Cadre), it had effectively recognized his service continuity

Applying K.B. Rajoria, the Tribunal reasoned that notional service should satisfy the eligibility criteria of "continuous service" under Regulation 5(2) to prevent further prejudice to the applicant, especially given his meritorious status and Scheduled Caste background

The Tribunal found the Union of India’s rejection order dated 16.11.2020 to be vitiated by non-application of mind, describing it as a "mere empty formality" that failed to address the extraordinary circumstances of the case

Furthermore, as the applicant is now an IPS officer, the legal barrier to applying the 1960 Residuary Matters Rules for relaxation no longer exists

It directed Respondent No. 4 (Ministry of Home Affairs) to reconsider the applicant’s representation by invoking Rule 3 of the AIS (Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, to relax the eight-year requirement under Regulation 5(2) of the 1955 Regulations

The respondents were directed to constitute a Review Selection Committee to re-examine the applicant’s eligibility for earlier Select Lists and assign an appropriate Year of Allotment with all consequential seniority and benefits on par with his 2001 batchmates

The entire exercise must be completed within four weeks