Retirement during delayed selection cannot defeat IPS induction after inclusion in the Select List.

The applicant, a Haryana Police Service officer, was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 3 May 1989 and thereafter promoted to Inspector, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police. He was granted a one-year extension after his normal superannuation date and ultimately retired from State service on 31 October 2025.

Selection Committee meetings for induction of Haryana Police Service officers into the Indian Police Service had not been convened for the Select List years 2020 to 2025, despite the availability of vacancies.

The Selection Committee met on 28 April 2026 and prepared year-wise Select Lists. The applicant was assessed as “Very Good” and recommended at Serial No. 5 in the Select List for 2020 against five vacancies. The Union Public Service Commission approved the recommendations on 14 May 2026.

However, when the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the appointment notification on 21 May 2026, the applicant was not appointed and his name was accompanied by the remark “Retired from Haryana Police Service”.

The respondents also stated that the applicant’s representation had been rejected by communication dated 15 June 2026.

Whether an officer whose name was included in the Select List for induction into the IPS could be denied appointment solely because he retired from the State Police Service before issuance of the appointment notification?

Whether the delay in convening the Selection Committee and finalising the Select List could defeat the applicant’s entitlement to consideration and appointment against the 2020 vacancies?

Whether the respondents were required to notionally appoint the applicant to the IPS with consequential continuity of service until the applicable age of superannuation?

The Tribunal applied Regulation 5 and Regulation 9 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, while recognising the distinction between preparation of the Select List and appointment from that list.

Relying upon Harjit Singh v. Union of India, Jotiba Tukaram Patil v. Union of India, C.L. Lakhanpal v. UPSC and Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chouhan, the Tribunal applied the principles that an employee has a right to fair and timely consideration for promotion, that administrative delay should not prejudice an otherwise eligible candidate, and that retirement during delayed finalisation of the selection process is not, by itself, a bar to induction into the All India Services.

It considered the respondents’ contention that Regulation 9(1) required continued membership of the State Police Service on the date of appointment, but held that retirement could not defeat the rights of an officer who was within the zone of consideration and was selected before the delay attributable to the authorities.

The applicant was eligible for consideration against the 2020 vacancies when the selection process was undertaken, and he was in fact assessed as suitable and included in the Select List at Serial No. 5.

His retirement occurred during the respondents’ delayed process of convening the Selection Committee and issuing the appointment notification, rather than before the relevant selection year or consideration.

Applying Harjit Singh, Jotiba Tukaram Patil and C.L. Lakhanpal, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not rely on their own delay to deny the applicant the benefit of selection.

The remark recording his retirement showed that his non-appointment was based solely on that circumstance, and not on lack of merit, vigilance issues or any other disqualification.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found the exclusion of the applicant from the appointment notification to be illegal.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to include the applicant’s name for induction into the IPS and issue the corresponding order of induction.

He was to be treated as notionally appointed to the IPS on the due date relating to the 2020 Select List.

The period between his superannuation from the State Police Service and his IPS appointment was to be treated as continuing service, subject to vigilance clearance and other formalities.

He was also directed to continue in service until attaining the age of superannuation prescribed for IPS officers.

The directions were to be implemented within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order; no costs were awarded.