State-service retirement cannot defeat IPS induction where the officer was eligible for the relevant select list.

The applicant, a member of the Haryana Police Service, was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in 1988 and was subsequently promoted to Additional Superintendent of Police on 8 March 2019.

He superannuated from State service on 31 August 2024.

The Selection Committee for induction of Haryana Police Service officers into the Indian Police Service had not been convened for the select-list years 2020–2025, despite the availability of vacancies.

The Selection Committee eventually met on 28 April 2026 and considered the applicant for the 2020 select list.

He was graded “Very Good” and recommended at Serial No. 4 against five vacancies.

The Union Public Service Commission approved the recommendation on 14 May 2026.

However, the Ministry of Home Affairs did not include him in the appointment notification dated 21 May 2026, recording the remark “Retired from Haryana Police Service”.

The applicant’s representations were rejected by the Ministry on 15 June 2026.

Whether an officer whose name was included in the IPS select list for the relevant year could be denied appointment solely because he had superannuated from the State Police Service before issuance of the appointment notification.

Whether the respondents’ delay in convening the Selection Committee and finalising the select lists could defeat the applicant’s right to consideration and consequential induction into the IPS.

Whether the applicant was entitled to notional appointment from the due date and continuity of service until attaining the prescribed age of superannuation for IPS officers.

The Tribunal applied Regulation 5 and Regulation 9(1) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, distinguishing between preparation of the select list and appointment from that list.

It considered the principle that every eligible employee has a right to be considered for promotion and that administrative delay should not defeat that right, relying on Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chouhan, (2010) 4 SCC 290.

It also relied on C.L. Lakhanpal v. UPSC, 1998 (3) SLR 436, which held that retirement of a State Civil Service officer could not by itself justify refusal of induction into an All India Service.

Harjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 405/2021, decided on 14 December 2021.

Jotiba Tukaram Patil v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 100/1330/2020, decided on 2 February 2021, which held that delay in finalising a selection should not defeat the rights of a candidate who was within the range of selection when the process commenced.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was eligible, was within the zone of consideration, and had in fact been recommended in the 2020 select list at Serial No. 4 against available vacancies.

Although the respondents relied on Regulation 9(1) to contend that continued membership of the State Police Service on the date of appointment was mandatory, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s retirement resulted from the respondents’ prolonged failure to convene the Selection Committee and complete the selection process for the relevant years.

Applying the principles in Hemraj Singh Chouhan, C.L. Lakhanpal, Harjit Singh and Jotiba Tukaram Patil, the Tribunal concluded that an administrative delay attributable to the respondents could not be used to deny the applicant the benefit of a selection in which he had been found fit and included in the select list.

The remark recording his retirement was therefore insufficient to lawfully exclude him from appointment.

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ refusal to induct the applicant into the IPS solely on the ground that he had retired from the Haryana Police Service was illegal.

The respondents were directed to include his name for induction into the IPS and issue the consequential induction order within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

His appointment was to be treated as notional from the due date relating to the 2020 select-list panel, with the intervening period treated as continuous service, subject to vigilance clearance and other formalities.

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

No order as to costs was made.