Seniority of promotee officers cannot be restricted by the shorter service length of seniors from preceding select lists.

The eight applicants were initially appointed to the Provincial State Police Service (PPS) in Uttar Pradesh in 1997 and were later promoted to the Indian Police Service (IPS) under the IPS Recruitment Rules, 1958

Although the applicants had rendered over 25 years of service, they were assigned 2015 as their year of allotment in the IPS

The applicants contended that they were entitled to the allotment year 2014 based on the weightage of their continuous service

Respondent No. 1 restricted their seniority to 2015 citing the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988, which stipulates that a junior officer cannot be assigned a higher batch year than a senior officer from an earlier Select List (in this case, Respondent No. 6 from the 2021 Select List)

The applicants’ representations were rejected by the respondents via orders dated 16.05.2025 and 02.09.2025

1. Whether the seniority and year of allotment of the applicants could be restricted by the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Seniority Rules, 1988, solely because a senior officer had less continuous service in the State Police Service

2. Whether the restriction of legitimate seniority based on the factual handicap of a senior officer constitutes a "manifest injustice" or "undue hardship" remediable under the Residuary Rules, 1960

Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 (as amended in 2012), which determines the year of allotment based on weightage given for continuous service in the State Police Service

Proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii), which prevents a junior from surpassing a senior in batch year

All India Services (Service Conditions of Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, which allows the government to grant relaxation in cases of undue hardship

Precedent set in Kavindra Pratap Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors (OA No. 463 of 2016), which established that a senior’s service handicap cannot be transmitted to a junior to deprive the latter of legitimate seniority

The Tribunal observed that while the applicants were technically entitled to the 2014 allotment year due to their length of service, the respondents applied the proviso of Rule 3(3)(ii) to "cap" their seniority at 2015 to match a senior officer from an earlier Select List

Following the reasoning in Kavindra Pratap Singh, the Tribunal held that the proviso must be given a "positive interpretation" and cannot impose a "negative burden" on juniors

The court reasoned that if a senior is affected by a factual handicap (less service duration), that infirmity cannot be transmitted to the junior

It further determined that eclipsing the applicants' original seniority caused "undue hardship," and the respondents should have invoked the Residuary Rules, 1960, to grant notional weightage to the senior officer instead of penalizing the applicants

The Tribunal noted that although the Kavindra judgment is under challenge in the High Court, it remains binding as there is no stay order

The Tribunal directed Respondents No. 1 to 5 to decide the applicants’ case and modify their allotment year (to 2014) in the same manner as directed in the Kavindra Pratap Singh case within a period of three months

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs