Holding

Rule 3(3)(b) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules is valid, and the year of allotment and seniority are determined solely by the date of continuous officiation in a senior cadre post, irrespective of any over‑utilisation of deputation or central reserve quotas.

Summary

B.R. Kapur and Harjeet Singh, directly recruited into the Punjab Police Service in 1951, were promoted to the Indian Police Service (IPS) in 1969. The dispute centered on the assignment of their "year of allotment" and seniority under Rule 3(3)(b) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, specifically whether continuous officiation in senior (cadre) posts—excluding periods spent in non‑cadre posts created through over‑utilisation of deputation and central reserve quotas—should determine seniority. The Supreme Court held that the rule is constitutionally valid, that the date of continuous officiation in a senior cadre post is the sole relevant factor for determining the year of allotment and seniority, and that over‑utilisation of deputation or central reserve does not affect these determinations. Consequently, the Court upheld the year of allotment based on the officers' senior‑post service, dismissed the writ petitions, and set aside the Division Bench judgment.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of Rule 3(3)(b) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the date of continuous officiation in a senior cadre post is the exclusive factor for determining the year of allotment under Rule 3(3)(b).
Whether service in non‑cadre posts, including those arising from over‑utilisation of deputation and central reserve quotas, can be counted as continuous officiation in a senior post for seniority purposes.
Whether over‑utilisation of deputation and central reserve quotas affects the assignment of year of allotment and seniority of promoted officers.
Whether the order of officers in the Select List influences the determination of year of allotment and seniority when years of allotment differ.
Whether the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations can override seniority rules or create enforceable rights affecting officers' seniority.

Legislation cited

All India Services Act, 1951s. 2, s. 3

Subjects

seniorityyear of allotmentIndian Police Servicecadre strengthdeputationcentral reserveRule 3(3)(b)Articles 14 and 16promotion by selectionsenior postnon‑cadre officerFixation of Cadre Strength Regulations

Judgment

459

HARJEET SINGH ETC. A

'"
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
April 11, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA ]YER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] B
Indian Police Servtce (Regulation of Seniority) Rules-Rule 3 (3) (b ) -
Validity of
Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre S~rength) Regulations, 1955-
Regulations 7 to 9-Year oj allotment service in non-cadre posts not considered
-Whether such a service would constitute a break for fixing t~e year of allot-
ment-JVhether over-utilisation of deputation und Central reserve quota relevant C
(joft fixing tlie year of allotment, when once the officer has continuously
officiated in a Senior Post-Whether offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Con~
stitution.

Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations-Regulutions
7 to 9 of 1955 and Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, µule 4(1), Scope
~ D
On seleciion by the Punjab Public Service Commission B. R. Kapur (appel-
lant in CA 2413178) and Harjeet Singh (Appellant in CA 2526177) were
directly recruited in 1951, as Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Punj.lb
Police Service. B. R. Kapur \Vas senior to Harjeet Singh as Deputy Superin-
tendent of Police. In 1960, both of them were included in the Select List
i prepared under Regulation 7 of the Indian Police Service, (Appointment by E
Promotion) Regulations, 1955. On November 24, 1960, B~ R. Kapur was
appointed as A'Ssista.I1t Inspector General of Police which post was a cadre
post In May 1961 he was appointed to a non-cadre post as Director of
Sports and Youth Programme and Deputy Secretary to Government, Sports
Department. He held this post upto November 18, 1962, and thereafter he
was appQinted as Additional Controller of Stores, Punjab which was also a
non<.Odre post. He continued to hold the post of Additional Controller of F
Stores till 1965, loom July 19, 1965 he was Commandant, 40th Battalion
PAP, J & K which was a cadre post. He held the post till July 11, 1966
when he took over as Commandant of 25th Battalion PAP. On the reorgani-
sation of the State of Punjab, he was appointed as Assistsant General of Police,
State of Punjab from November l, 1966. Thereafter he continuously held
cadre posts and was finally appcinted to. the Indian Police Sen'ice with effect
from September 3, 1969. Shri Harjeet Singh was appointed to officiate IS G
Superintendent of Police in December 1960. 1'he post was a cadre post. He
continued to hold a cadre post till he \Vas appointed to the Indian Police
Service- with effect from September 3, 1969.
P...ftec the· l\\'O officers were appointed to the Indian Police Service the ques-
tion of assignment of year of allotment and fixation of seniority arQ6C for the
consideration of the Government of India. Shri B. R. Kapur was allotted
H
the year 1963 and placed below Sube Singh and above S. R. Sharma (direcl
recruits) in the Jndian Police Service, counting his continuoUs officiating service
from 1-11-66 only, as service in a senior cadre post and not his service in the
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A non-cadre post. In the case of Harject Singh, though he admittedly officiated
continuously in a senior cadre post from December 1960, he was also allotted
to the year 1963 and placed below Sri Kapur on the ground that he ranked
~elo¥/ Sri Kapur in the select list.
Kapur and Harjeet Singh filed \\Tit petitions in the· High Court of PlUljab
and Haryana quelltioning the allotment of the year 1963. The Writ Petitions
B were· accepted. The Court directed the Union and Punjab Government& to
redetermine the year of allotment and seniority of J-Jarjeet Singh and Kapur
taking December 17, 1960 and July 29, 1965 respectively as the dates of their
continuous officiation in '-!. senior post. A further direction was issued that
before redetcrn1ining the seniority of the two officials, the respondents to the
Writ Petitions \.Vho were direct recruits should be afforded an opp0rtunity to
make their representation.
c Appeals under clause· 10 of the Letters Patent were filed by the affected
direct recruits as also by B. R. Kapur. The direct recruits contended that
neither B. R. Kapur nor Harjeet Singh would have ever started officiating in
the senior post on the daks from V.'hich they officiated or claimed to have
officiated in senior posts, if the State Governments had not created artificial
vacancies by exces~ive utilisation of the "deputation and central reserve" quota
in contravention of the cadre Rules and the Cadre·strength Regulations. The
D arguments before the Division Bench therefore was that the period of service
attributable to over utilisation of 'deputation and central reserve' quota should
not be treated as service in a senior post for the purpose of determining the
year of allotment of officers promoted to the I.ru.lian Police Service. The
argument was accepted by the Division Bench and a direction was issued to
ithe Central Government to reconsider the question of year of allotment after
taking ·into consideration the question of over utilisation and its effect. The
E
finding of the learned Single Judge that B. R. Kapur was entitled to have
his service as Commandant 25th Battalion as officiation in a senior post was
however affirmed. . Hence the appeals by special leave by Harjeet Singh and
Kapnr.

Allowing the appeals and dismissing the Petitions, the Court.
F
HELD : 1. Rule 3 (3) (b) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1954 is valid. [476E]

A. P. Sharma v. Union of India, [1968] S.L.R. 582; followed.
2. Rule 3(3)(b) as well as Rule 4(4) of the Indian Police Service (Regu-
lation of Seniority Rules 1954 throw up the date of continuous officiation
G of an officer in a cadre post as the most ,important factor both for the pul"'-
pose of assignment of year Of allotment and for the purpose of assignment
of seniority. For the. purpose of assignment of year of ailotment the date of
continuous officiation in a senior post is the only relevant factor while for the
purpose of assignment of seniority, first, the date of continuous officiation in a
senior post, then the date of appointment to the Service if the date of comnren-
cement of continuous officiation in a Senior post of more than one officer is the
H same and, finally, the order in the Select List if the date of appointment is also
the same arc the several relevant factors in that order. Thus the order in the
Select List is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the year o.f allotment
HARJEET SINGH V. UNION 461

and is relevant in detennining the seniority, only if the year of allotinent of the A
officers is also the same, and their date of ap·pointment is also the same.
Since the order in the Select List is dependent on the seniority in the State
Service, it follows that seniority in the State Police Service is irrelevant for
the purpose of determining the year o'f allotment and is relevant for the· pur-
pose of deter111ining- the ~eniority only if the year of allotment and the date
of appointn1ent of two or more officers are the same. Therefore an officer
who is junior to another in the State Police Service but, who starts continuous B
officiation in a Senior post fro1n a date earlier than the other, may frog-leap·
and gain seniority by the consequential assignn1ent of an earlier year of allot-
ment. Neither the Indian Police Serrice (Regulation of Seniority) Rules n_or
any other rule in the irmumcrablc Rules and Regulations governing the recruit-
ment, appoint1nent and Regulation of seniority of officers of the Indian Police
Sen ice is designed to deprive an officer, the benefit of continuous officiation
1

in a senior post. [471G-H, 472A-E] c
3. Though under the Indian Police Service (/\.ppointment by Pro1notion)
Regulations, the Select l,ist is prepared on the basis of merit and ability, the
. order in which officers are placed in the Select List is accorditig to seniority
in the State Police Service and not according to merit and ability. Merit and
ability arc considered for the purpose of inclusion in the Select List but there-
<ifter s(:nior1ty in th~ State Police Service takes over and the nan1~ of Officers &
:ire aJranged in the order of that seniority, Therefore the benefit of conti-
nuow officiation in a Senior post cannot be denied to an officer appointed
to the Indian Police Service merely on the ground that an officer senior to
hitn in the· State Police Service did not so continuously officiate. [472F·H]

4. It is true that under Regulation 8 of the Indian Police Service (i\.ppoint-
i ment by Promotion) Regulation & Appointments to cadre posts from among E
non-cadre officers should be n1ade according to the order in which the names
o.f such officers appear in the Select Li..<>t. .A. dcviatio11 from the order is
permissible if administrative exigencies require it and if the vacancy is not
likely to last for more than three months. Of course, the Regulation does
not license uninhibited deviation to favour individunl non-cadre officers. If that
is done the deYiatiot1 is liable to cha11enge. But where there is no such alle-
gation, there is no reason why a junior non-cadre officer should lose the benefit F
of his conti11uo~1s officiation in a. cadre post merely because a non-cadre officer
.. _.._ senior to him in the Select I.ist did not continuously officiate likewise. In
such a situation, it \vould be for the Government of India to consider whether
the relevant rules may not be so relaxed as to enable such non-caJ.rc officer
j
to add hi~ officiation in a non-cadre post to his officiation in a cadre -post,
regard being had to the· circumstances· under which the officer had 'i.o work
in a non-cadre rost \vhilc his junior in the Select List \Vas inade to fill the G
cadre post. But. surely, it cannot \Vork to the prejudice of the junior officer
in the Select Li"\ so as to nuilify the actual, continuous, officiating service
rendered by hin1. In the present case there is no allegation that B. R. Kapur
was appointed to lhc non-cadre posts of Director of Sports and Additional Con-
troller of Stores \vith a vie\v to favour Harjeet Singh. [472 H, 473A-Dl
5. Non-ca<lre officers if they arc appointed to cadre posts in accordance .ft·
with Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules should not be denied the benefit of continuous
officiation in senior post merely because cadre officers were appointed on
deputation elsewhere in excess of the number of posts specified against a
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.
A Deputation Reserve in the schedule to the Cadre Fixation of Strength Regu-
. Jation. [473E-FJ

Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations are made in exercise of the power
conferred on the Central Government by Rule 4 ( 1) of the Cadre Rules and
are, therefore, subordinate to the Cadre rules even as rules made in exercise .
of powers confem:d by a Statute are necessarily subordinate to the Statute. Rule
• B 6 of the Cadre Rules provides for the deputation of Cadre officers and Rule 9
of the same rules provides for the temporary appointment of non-cadre officers
to cadre posts. In making appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts
the rule prescribes the fulfilment of certain conditions. In the instant case.
that the conditions prescribed by rule 9 of the Cad re Rules were fulfilled is
clear from the impugned order. [473F-H]

C 6. Rule 4(1) o;f the Cadre Rules enables the Central Government to make
Regulations determining the strength and composition of the Cadre of each
State. A definite number of posts is also specified against "Deputation Reserve'"
in the schedule to the fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations. But if owing
t<> the situational demands and e·xigencies of the <!dministration, the number
is exceeded and the State Government is compelled to utilise the services of
experienced non-cadre officers to fill cadre posts in strict compliance with the
D Cadre Rules, the Service rendered by the non--cadre officers in such posts should
not be ignored. Jn the instant case, the deputation of cadre officers was in
accordance with Rule 6 of the Cadre Rules. [474A-C]
7. Fixation of cadre strength Regulations made under Rule 4 of the Cadre
Rules do not over-ride the Recruitment Rule, the remaining Cadre Rules and
the Seniority Rules so as to render invalid any service rendered by a non-cadre
officer in a cadre post on the mere ground of breach of the Fixation of cadre
E Strength Regulations, when there has been strict compliance with Rule 9 of the
Cadre Rules. Fixation of Cadre Strength is the exclusive concern of the
Central and the State Governments and the Regulations are made for their
convenience· and better relationship. Excessive utilisation of 'Deputation or
Central Reserye' is a matter for adjustment and controversy between the Central
and the State Governments and is of no concern to any member of the service.
For example no cadre officer who is asked to fill a deputation post can refuse to
F join the post on the ground that the 'Deputation Reserve' has already been
exceeded. The Regulations are not intended to and do not confer any
right on any member of the Service, unlike some other Rules which do confer
or create rights in the members of the Services. A mere breach of the mle
furnishes no cause of action on the ground that his seniority is affected in
son1e round-about way. [474C-G and 475A]
G 8. Under Rule 6(A){2) of the Indian Police Service Recruitment Rules
a direct recruit in the junior time scale of pay can be appointed to a post
in the Senior time seale of pay if having regard to his length of service,
experience and performance he is found to be suitable for appointment to
1

post in the Senior time scale of pay. Since at that time in Punjab, there
was no direct recruit in the junior time scale of pay \Vho possessed experience
of at least four years who could be thought of for appaintment in the Senior
H post, the State Government had no option except to apPoint experienced and
suitable non-cadre officers to cadre posts. Further no cadre officer who had
been so deputed suffered in any manner in the matter of his career. [475B-D]
HARJEET SINGH V. UNION 463

Further, the appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre post. is subject to A
the directions of the Central Government, who may terminate such appointment.
The C'.entral Government too is bound to obtain the advice of the Union
Public Service Commission if the appointment is to extent beyond six months.
1\foreover non-cadre officers of proven merit only are appointed to cadre
posts. 111ey are appointed to cadre posts if they are already in the Select
List and the appointments are made in accordance with the order in which
• they are placed in the Sekel List which is prepared under the Indian Police B
Service Recruitment Rules after following an elaborate procedure involving
a thorough examination at various levels. of the merit of the officers of the
State Police Service. A State Officer whose name appears on the Select List
may expect to be appointed to a cadre post and lo be promoted to the Indian
Police Service at any time thereafter according to vacancy position. A direct
recruit who ordinnrily comes into the picture year:i after a State Officer's name
:~ appears on the Select List cannot have any real grievance that the promoted C
officer is given fin anterior date for the purpose of seniority since such <late
can never be earlier than the date from which the junior most direct recruit
continuously officiated in a Senior post prior to the commencement of the con-
tinuous officiation of !he promoted officer. [475E-H, 476A-B]

9. Every departure from a rule which departure gives certain advantages
to one group of Civil servants as against another does not necessarily involve D
an encroachment of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. The Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations cannot be
interpreted as comprising any "Quota" n1le. There is no allegation of breach
of "quota" rule embodied in Rule 9(2) of the Recruitment Rules either. [476B-E]
N. K. Chauhan nnd Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1977] 1 SCR 1037, dis-
tinguished. E
i 10. "The over·utilisation" of 1'Deputation and Central Reserve" does not
affect the questions of assignment of the year of allotment and the seniority
of the appellants. [476F-G]

C!viL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2526/77 and
2413/78.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 17-5-1975 of the Pnnjab and
Haryana High Court in LPA Nos. 633, 671; 694/73 and 609173.
AND
Writ Petition Nos. 520-524 af 1980.
G
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
Jawahar Lal Gupta and S. Ghose for the Appellant in CA 2526/
77.
P. R. Mridul, M. R. Agnihotri and P. C. Bhartari for the Appellant
in CA 2413/78. H
0. P. Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the State of Punjab in both
the appeals. _
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R.

A Lal Narain Sinha Att. Genl. Abdul Khader and Miss S. Subhashini
for the Union of India in all the appeals.
H. L. Sibal, R. K. Garg and R. S. Sodhi for Respondent No.
10 in CA 2526 and RRll in CA 2413.
R. K. Garg and R. S. Sodhi for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 520-
B 524 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In these appeals we have once again to
consider career conscious competing claims to seniority which appear
so much to dominate the lives and careers of our Civil Servants that
c a large bulk of the cases in this Court relate to the resolution of prob-
lems arising out of such claims. So much of our time is taken up' in
discovering the precise facts of these intricate problems that we
wonder whether the constitution of a fact-finding administrative tribu-
nal who should invariably be approached in the first instance will not
better serve the cause of successful administration. An administrative
D
tribunal possessing the necessary expertise and familiarity with admi-
nistrative procedures and rules may be able to deal with the problems
in a satisfactory way. At least the facts wil1 be found and the relevant
rules will be !mown. Thereafter aggrieved parties may approach the
Courts for further relief within the confines of Articles 226 and 32 of
E the Constitution.
On selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission, B. R.
Kapur and Harjeet Singh were directly recruited, in 1951, as Deputy
Superintendents of Police in the Punjab Police Service. They are the
appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2413 of 1978 and 2526 of 1977 res-
pectively. B. R. Kapur was senior to Harjeet Singh as Deputy Super-
F intendent of Police. In 1960 both of them were included in the Select
List prepared under Regulation 7 of the Indian Police Service ( Ap-
pointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. On November 24, 1960,
B. R. Kapur was appointed as Assistant Inspector General of Police
which post was a cadre post. In May, 1961, B. R. Kapur was
G appointed as Director of Sports and Youth Programme and Deputy
Secretary to Government, Sports Department. The post was a non-
cadre post. He held this post upto November 18, 1962 and thereafter
he was appointed as Additional Controller of Stores, Punjab which
was also a non-cadre post. He continued to hold the post of Additional
Controller of Stores till 1965. From July 19, 1965, he was Comman-
H dant, 40th Battalion, PAP, J & K, which was a cadre post. He held the
post till July 11, 1966, when he took over as Commandant of 25th
Battalion, PAP. On the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, he
HARJEET SINGH v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, I.) 465

wa,s appointed as Assist.ant Inspector General of Police, State of Pun- A
jab from November 1, 1966. Thereafter he continuously held cadre
posts and was finally appointed to the Indian Police Service with effect
from September 3, 1969.
Shri Harjeet Singh was appointed to officiate as Superintendent of
• Police in Dec·~mber, 1960. The post was a cadre pool. He conti-
nued to hold a cadre post till he was appointed to the Indian Police
B

Service with effect from September 3, 1969. After the two officers
were appointed to the Indian Police Service the question of assign-
ment of year of allotment and fixation of se'niority arose for the
consideration of the Government of India. Shri B. R. Kapur was
allotted to the year 1963 and placed below Sube Singh and above c
Shri S. R. Sharma (direct recruits) in the Indian Police Service Gra-
dation List of Punjab. The period of his service as Director of
·sports and Yonth Programme and as Additional Controller of Stores
was not taken into consideration as both the posts were non-cadre
posts. His service as Commandant of 25th Battalion was also not
taken into account on the gronnd that the 25th B~ttalion had been D
taken over by the Government of India and therefore the post of Com-
mandant of the 25th Batl'alion was a non-cadre post. He was, there-
fore, treated as having continuously officiated in a senior coore post
from November 1, 1966 o'nly. On that basis he was allotted to the
year 1963. In the case of Harjeet Singh, though admittedly he offi-
i ciated continuously in a senior cadre post from December, 1960 he
was also allotted to the year 1963 and placed below Shri B. R Kapur
on the ground that he ranked below Shri B. R. Kapur in the select
list.
B. R. Kapur. and Harjeet Singh filed Writ Petitions in the High
F
Court of Punjab and Haryana questioning the allotment of the year
1963 to them for the purpose of seniority in the Indian Police Ser-
vice. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the
petitions in the first instance held that there was no reason at all why
Harjeet Singh should not be given the full benefit of his continuous
officiation in a senior post. He, therefore, directed the Union and G
Punjab Governments to redetermine the year of allotment of Harjeet
Singh, taking December 17, 1960, as the date from which he continu-
..
' ously officiated in a senior post. It was also directed that proper seniority
should be assigned to him in accordance with the year of allotment
so determined. In the case of B. R. Kapur it was held that Ju:y 29,
1965, should be treated as th,~ date of. his continuous officiation in a H
senior post. It was held that the Government of India and the Gov-
,ernment of Pnnjab boo all the time treated the post of Commandant,
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A 25th Battalion as a cadre post and therefore, B. R. Kapur was entitled
to have his service in the post. of Co=andant, 25th Battalion as
officiation in a Senior post. A direction was issued that the year of
•
allotment and seniority should be re·determined. It was further
directed that before redeterminihg the seniority of the two officers, '·
B
the respondents to the Writ Petitions who were direct recruits, should
be afforded an opportunity to make their representations.
•
Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent were filed by the
affected direct recruits as also by B. R. Kapur. Before the Di\ision
Bench the case took a new turn. It was argued before the Division
Bench on behalf of the direct recruits that neither B. R. Kapur nor
c Harjeet Sihgh would have ever started officiating in the senior post
on the dates from which they officiated or claimed to have officiated
in senior posts, if the State Government had not created artificial
vacancies by excessive utilisation of 'the deputation and central re-
serve' quota in contravention of the Cadre Rules and the Cadre-str-
ength Regulations. It was apparently sought to be argued before the
D
Divisioh Bench that th•e period of service attributable to over utilisa-
tion of 'deputation and central reserve' quota should not be treated
as service in a senior ·post for the purpose of determining the year
of allotment of officers promoted to the Indian Police Service. The
argument was accepted by the Division Bench and a direction was
E issued to the Central Government to reconsider the question of year
of allotment after taking into consideration the question of over utili-
sation and its effect. The finding of the learned Single Judge that
B. R. Kapur was entitled to have his service as Commandant 25th
'
Battalion as officiation ih a senior post was however affirmed.
Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta, learned counsel for Harjeet Singh argued
F
that the service of Harjeet Singh in a senior cadre post was approved
by the Government of India and once it was so approved the question
whether there was over utilisation of deputation and central reserve
quota was irrelevant for the purpose of determihing the year of allot-
ment.. The only relevant question was whether the appellant bad
G continuously officiated in a senior post and, from what date. There- ,
after the year of allotment was to be determined by the simple and
mechanical application of rule 3(3) (b) of the Indian Police Ser-
vice (Regulation of Sehiority) Rules. He further submitted that the
'circumstance that B. R. Kapur was senior to Harjeet Singh in the
Select List was also irrelevant in considering the question of year of
H allotment. It was only if both of them were given the same year of
allotment that their inter-se seniority in the Select List would become
relevant. Shri Mridul, learned counsel for B. R. Kapur, argued that
HARJEET SINGH v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 467

the single Judge of the High Court was wrong in excluding the period A
of service of B. R. Kapur as Director of Sports and as Additional
Controller of Stores in determining the year of allotment. He fur-
ther contended that in any event the case of B. R. K.apnr was an
.appropriate one for the exercise by the Central Government of its
pawer to reLix the rules and that this Court should give a direction to
• the Central Government to relax the rules so as to enable that part of
B

Kapur's service to be treated as service in a &<nior pool.

·, ' Shri H. L. Sibal, learned counsel for one of the respondents argu-
ed· that the number of cadre officers who could be deputed by the
Central and State Governments for servie>< elsewhere was limited and
fixed by the fndian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regu-
c
lations. By deputing more cadre officers than authorised by thoo"

, Regulations and appointing non-cadre officens to artificial vacancies
so created in cadre posts, the State Government had adopted a device
to enable the officers of the State Police Service to continuously offi-
ciate in Senior posts longer than justified. The Cadre Strength Regu- D
lations were thereby' contra~ened and the Cadre Rules which provide
for the temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts
circumvented. He submitted that officiating service rendered by a non-
cadre officer in a Senior post where the vacancy in the cadre post was
the result of over utilisation of the deputation quota could not be
taken into account under the Indian Police Service Regulation of E
Seniority Rules. Shri R. K. Garg, who appeared for the remaining
respondents urged that to permit promoted officers to take advantage
of the deviation from the Cadre Rules and the Cadre Fixation of
Strength Regulations for the purpose of gaining an advantage under
the Seniority Rules would be a denial of the equal protection of the
F
laws to the direct r~cruits who would be affected by such procedure.
He also urged that Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules if so interpreted as
to take into account officiation against the rules must be held to
contrave1w A:rticb 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to G
examine the relevant statutory provisions, rules and regulations.

Article 312 ( 1) empomrs Parliament to provide, by law, for the
I cr~ation of All India Services common to the Union ahd the States.
Article 312(2) d~clares that the services known at the commence-
ment of th~ Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service and the 8
Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created by Par-
liament under Art. 312(1).
10-289 SC!/80
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980 3 S.C.R.

A S. 2 of the All India Services Act, 1951 defines an "All India
Service" as meaning the service known· as the Indian Administrative
Service or the service known as the Indian Police Service or any other
service specified in S. 2(A). Sec. 3 enables the Central Government
after consultation with the Government of the States concerned to
make rules for the regnlation of recruitment, and the conditions of
B service of persons appointed to an All India Service.
The Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, made in exer-
cise of the pomrs conferred by S. 3 (1) of the All India Services
Act, provide for the constitution of Cadres and certain connected
matters. A Cadre Officer is defined as a member cf the Indian
•
C · Police Service and a Cadre post is defined as any of the posts speci-
fied under item 1 of each cadre in the schedule to the Indian Police
Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regnlations, 1955. Rule 4(1)
provides that the strength and composition of a cadre constituted
for each State or group of States shall be as determined by Regula-
tions made by the Central Government in consultation with the State
D Governments. Rule 4(2) requires the Central Government to re-exa-
mine the strength and composition of each such cadre at intervals of
iovery three years in consultation with the State Government con-
o~rned and to make such alterations as it deems fit. The first pro-
viso to Rule 4(2) expressly stipulates that the power of the Central
Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at
E any other time is not affected by rule 4(2). The second proviso to
r. 4(2) enables the State Government to add, for 'a period not exceed-
ing one year,. and iwth the approval of the Central Government for
a further period not exceeding two years, to a State cadre one or
more ppsts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to a
cadre post. Rule 6 authorises the deputation of cadre officers for
F service under the Central Government or another State Government
or under a Company, Association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or con-
trolled by the Central Government or a State Government, a Muni-
cipal Corporation or a Local body or an international organisation
G etc. etc. Rule 8 prescribes "save as otherwise provided in these rules,
every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer". Rule 9(1) pro-
vides for the temporary appointment of a non-cadre officer to a cadre
post if the State Government is satisfied that the vacancy is not like-
ly to last for more than three months or if there is no suitable cadre
officer available for filling the vacancy. Where a non-cadre officer
H is appointed to a cadre post for a period exceeding three months
the State Government is required forthwith to report the fact to the
Central Government together with their reasons for making the
HARJEET SINGH v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 469

appointment. The Central Government may then.direct the State Gov- A
ernment to terminate the appointment of such person and to appoint
a cadre officer to the post, in which ca9~ the State Govertunent iS
bound to give effect to the directian. Where a cadre post is likely
to be filled by a non-cadre officer for a period exceeding six months
the Central Government is required to report the full facts to the.
, Union Public Service Commission and may thereafter give appropriate B
directions to the State Government in the light of the advice given by
the. union Public Service Commission.
Pursuant to the powers conferred by R. 4(1) of the Indian Police
Service Cadre Rules, the Central Government has made the Indian
Police Service (Fixatian of Cadre Strength) Regulations 1955, deter-
mining the strength and compooition of the cadres of each of the
States. In the schedule the total anthorised cadre strength for the
State of Punjab is mentioned as 70 consisting of 34 Senior Posts w:der
the State Government, 14 Senior posts under the Central Government,
7 Deputation Reserve posts, 6 Leave Reserve posts and 7 Junior
posts and 4 Training Reserve posts. The thirty four senior posts D
under the State Govertunent are also particularly specified. Thirty
six out of the total of forty eight Senior posts under the Central and
State Gavernments, the deputation Reserve posts, the Leave Reserve
posts, the Junior posts and the Training Reserve posts are all stated
to be 'direct recruitment posts' while the remaining 12 Senior posts
m;ider the Central and State Governments are stated to be "promo- E
i tion pqsts". It is necessary to mention here that the thirty four posts
specified as "Senior posts under the State Government" are shown
as item 1 of the schedule and the fourteen Senior posts under the
Central Government are shown as item 2 of the schedule.
The Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rnles, 1954 provide for
F
recruitment to the Service (a) by a competitive service and (b) by
promotion of substantive members of a State Police Service. Rule
.•.. _.\.- 9 ( 1) empowers the Central Government to recruit to the Indian Police
Service persons by promotion from amongst the substantive members
of the State Police Service in accordance with Regulations made by
t the Central Government. The recruitment is required to be made on G
the recommendation of the State Government concerned and in consul-
tation with the Union Public Service Commission. Rule 9(2) provides
that the total number of persons recruited by promotion shall not at
any time exceed 25% of the number of posts shown against item No.
, 1 and 2 of the cadre in the schedule to the Indian Police Service
(Fixatfon of Cadre Strength) Regulation. Items 1 and 2, we have al- H
ready mentioned are Senior posts nnder the State and the Central
Govertunents.
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A The Indian Police Service (Appointment 'by Promotion) Regula-
tions 1955, made pursnaJ1t to Rule 9(1) of the Indian Police Service
Recrnitment Rules 1954 prescribes a very elaborate procedure for
making appointments by promotion to the Indian Police Service. A
Selection Committee is required to be constituted for each State consist-
ing of the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service
B Commission and other members specified in the schedule. In the case
of Punjab the other members are the Chief Secretary to the Govern-
ment of Punjab, the Secretary to the Government of Punjab in the
Home Department, the Inspector General of Police and a nominee of
the Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary. The
Selection Committee is required to meet at intervals ordinarily not
exceeding one year and to consider the cases of all eligible substantive
members of the State Police Service. The Committee is required to
prepare a list of such eligible members of the State Police Service who
are suitable for promotion to the Indian Police Service The selection
for inclusion in the list is to be based on merit and suitability in all
D respects with due regard to seniority but the names of the officers in-
cluded in the list are required to be arranged in order of seniority in.
the State Police Service. The list prepared by the Selection Com-
mittee is then to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission
by the State Govermnent with all relevant records, the reasons re-
corded by the Committee for any _proposed supersession of any member
E of the State Police Service and the observation of the State Govern-
ment on the recommendation of the Committee. Thereafter the Union
Public Service Commission is to consider the list prepared by the Com-
mittee and to make any changes considered by them, to be
necessary, after informing the State Government of the pro-
posed changes. The list as finally approved by the Commission is to
F form 'the Select List of the members of the State Police Service.' All
appointments of members of the State Police Service from the Select
List to posts borne on the State cadre are to be made in accordance
with the provisions of R. 9 of the Cadre Rules. In making the ap-
pointments the State Government is to follow the order in which the
'names of such officers appear in the Select List except where ad-
G l
ministrative exigencies require otherwise and the vacancy is not likely
to last for more than thre_e months. Appointments of members to the
Indian Police Service are to be made by the Central Government on
the recommendation of the State Government in the order in wliich
the names of the members of the ,State Police Service appear in the
Select List for ths time being in force.
H
We arrive :finally at the Indian Police Service (Regulation cf Senio-
rity) Rules 1954. Rules 3 provides that every officer shall be assigned
HARJEET SINGH v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 4 71

a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions of that rule. A
Rule 3(3)(b) prescribes that the year of allotment of an. officer who is
appointed to the service by promotion in accordance with rule 9 of the
Recruitment rules, shall be the year of allotment of the junior most
among the officers recruited by competitive examination who officiated
continuously in a Senior post from a date earlier than the date of
B
commencement of such officiation by the officer 'lippoi'nted to the
service by promotion. 'Senior post' was originally defined as a post
included and specified :under item 1 of the cadre of each State in the
Schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength)
. . ,t( Regulation and as including posts declared by the State Government
as equivalent to such posts. The definition was amended with effect 0
from April 22, 1967 and the present definition does not include posts
declared equivalent by the State Government to cadre posts.

Rule 4 ( 1) provides that the seniority of officers inter-se shall be
determined in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Rule 4( 4)
provides that the Seniority of officers who are assigned the same year
D
<if allotment shall be in the order of the dates on which they started
officiating continuously in the Senior post, but in the case of Officers
appointed to the service by promotion, the dates of officiation shall be
the same as the _dates taken into account for the purpose of assign-
i ment of year of allotment under rule 3 ( 3). Where the dates of com-
mencement of continuous officiation in a Senior post of more than B
one Officer appointed to the service by promotion is the same their
seniority inter-se shall be in the order of their dates of appointment to
the service and where the date of appointment is also the same it shall
be in the order in which their names are arranged on the date of
their appointment to the service in the Select List.
F
These are the Statutory provisions, Rules and Regulations with
which we are concerned in the present appeals. What are primarily
in question are the year of allotment and the Seniority of the two
l officers, Harjeet Singh and B: R. Kapur. So, therefore, our primary
concern is with the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority)
Rules, 1954- Rule 3(3)(b) as well as rule 4(4) throw up the date G
of continuous officiation of an officer in a -cadre post as the most im-
portant factor both for the purpose of assignment of yoor of allotment
and for the purpose of assignment of seniority. For the purpose
of a1;signment of year of allotment the date of continuous offi-
ciation in a senior post Is the only relevant factor while for th«
purpose of assignment of seniority, first, the date of continuous offi- H
ciation in a senior post is the only relevant factor while for the
if the date of commencement of continuous officiation in a Senior
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A post of more than one officer is the same and, finally, the order in the
Select List if the date of appointment is also the same, are the
several relevant factors in thi!_t order. Thus the order in the Select
List is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the year of allotment
and is relevant in determining the seniority, only if the year of allot-
ment of the Officers is the same and their date of appoi"ntment is also
B the same. Since th~ order in the S~lect List is dependent on the
seniority in the State Service, it follows that seniority in the State
Police Service is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the year of
allotment and is relevant for the purpose of determining the se"niority
only if the year of allotment and the date of appointment of two or
c more officers are the same. It must, therefore, necessarily follow that
an officer who is junior to another in the State Police .Service but,
who starts continuous officiation in a Senior post from a date earlier
than the other, may frog-leap and gain Seniority by the 'consequential
assignment of an earlier year of allotment. There is nothing in the
Indian Police Servi¢ (Regulatiorn of Senidrity) Rules, which has
D the effect of depriving an officer the benefit of continuous officiation
on the ground that some one senior to him in the State Police Service
did not so continuously officiate. Nor are we able to discover any
other rule in the innumerable Rules and Regulations governing the
recruitment, appointment and Regulation of Seniority of officers of the
Indian Police Service which is designed to deprive an officer, the
benefit of continuous officiation in a Senior post.

One of the submissions made to us by the respondents was that
the Select List having been prepared on grounds of merit and ability,
the order in which officers were ranked in the Select List should not be
disturbed after they wer.e actually promoted to the Indian Police Ser-
F vice. This submission is without substance. Though under the Indian
Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, th" Select
List is prepared on the basis of merit and ability, the order in which
officers are placed in the Select List is according to seniority in the
State Police Service and not according to merit and ability. Merit and
ability are considered for the purpose of inclusion in the Select List but
G thereafter seniority in the State Police Service takes ctver and the
names of Officers are arranged in the order of that seniority. We, are,
therefore, satisfied that the benefit of continuous officiation in a Senior
post cannot be denied to an officer appointed to the Indian Police Ser-
vice merely on the ground that an officer senior to him in the State
Police Service did not so conthmously officiate.
B
It is, however, true that under Regulation 8 of the Indian Police
Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, appointments to
HARJEET SINGH v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 473

cadre posts from among non-cadre officers should be made according A
to the order· in which the names of such officers appear in the Select
List. A deviation from the order is permissible if administrative
, exigencies require it and if the vacancy is not likely to last for more
than three months. Of course, the Regulation does not license nn-
inhibited deviation to favour individnal non-cadre officers. If that is
B
done the deviation is liable to challenge. But where there is no such
allegation, there is no reason why a junior non-cadre officer should
lose the benefit of his continnous officiation in a cadre post merely
because a non-cadre officer senior to him in the Select List did not
...Ai continuously officiate likewise. In such a situation, it would be for
the Government of India to consider whether the relevant rules may
not be so relaxed as to enable such non-cadre officer to add his
c
officiation in a non-cadre post to his officiation in a cadre post, regard
being had to the circumstances under which the officer had to work
in a non-cadre post while his junior in the Select List was made to
fill the cadre post. But, surely, it caµnot work to the ·prejudice of
the junior officer in the Select List so as to nullify the actual, conti- D
nuous, officiating service rendered by him. In the present case there
is no allegation that B. R. Kapur was appointed to tbe non-cadre posts
of Director of Sports and Additional Controller of Stores with a view
to favour Harjeet Singh.
Now, the question for consideration is whether non-cadre officers
are to be denied the benefit of continuous officiation in senior post E
merely because cadre officers were appointed on deputation elsewhere
in excess of the number of posts specified against 'Deputation Reserve'
in the schedule to the Cadre Fixation of Strength Regulation. We
are unable to discover any provision in the Seniority Rules, Recruit-
ment Rules, Cadre Rules or the Cadre Regulations which would lead p
to such a consequence. To begin with it has to be borne in mind
that the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations are made in exercise
of the powers conferred on the Central Government by Rule 4 (1) of
the Cadre Rules and are, therefore, subordinate to the Cadre rules
even as rules made in exercise of powers conferred by a Statute are
necessarily subordinate to the Statute. Rule 6 of the Cadre Rules G
provides for th'e deputation of Cadre Officers and Rule 9 of the same
rules provides for the temporary appointment of non-cadre officers
to cadre posts. In making appointments of non-cadre officers to cadre
posts the rule prescribes the fulfilment of certain condition~. It is
not disputed that the conditions prescribed by Rule 9 of the Cadre
Rules were fulfilled. That the conditions were fulfilled is also apparent H
from the very impugned order. If non-cadre officers are appointed to
cadre posts in accordance with Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules, is there
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

any justification for denying the non-cadre officer the benefit of officia-
tion in the cadre post on the ground that more cadre officers than the
number specified in the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations had
been deputed for service elsewhere ? It is not disputed that the depu-
tation of cadre officers was in accordance with' Rule 6 of the Cadre
Rules. True, Rule 4(1) of the Cadre Rule enables. the Central Govern~
B ment to make Regulations determining the strength and composition
of the Cadre of each State. It is also true that a definite number of
posts is specified against 'Deputation Reserve' in the schedule to the
Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations. But if owing to the situa-
\
tional demands and exigencies of the administration the number is -~
exceeded and the State Government is compelled to utilise the services
c of experienced non-cadre oflicers to fill cadre posts in strict compliance
with the Cadre Rules, we see no reason to hold that the service render-
' ed by the non-cadre officers in such posts should be ignored.
On the other hand we think that the Fixation of Cadre Strength
Regufations made under Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules do not over-ride
D the Recruitment Rule, the remaining Cadre Rules and the Seniority
Rules so as to render invalid any service rendered by a non-cadre
officer in a cadre post on the mere ground of breach of the Fixation.
of Cadre Strength Regulations, when there has been strict 'compliance
with Rule 9 of the Cadre Rufos. We think that fixation of Cadre
strength is the exclusive concern of the Central and the State Govern-
E ments and the Regulations are made for their convenience and better
relationship. Excessive utilisation of 'Deputation or Central Reserve'
is a matter for adjustment an:d controversy between the Central and
the ·State Governments and is of no concern to any member of the
Service. For example no cadre officer who is asked to fill a deputation
post can refuse to join the post on the ground that the 'Deputation
r
Reserve' has already been exceeded. The Regulations are not intend-
ed to and do not confer any right on any member of the Service, unlike
some other Rules which do confer or create rights in the members of
the Services. Among other Rules, for instance, Rule 9(2) of the
Recruitment Rules stipulates that the total number of persons recruited
G by promotion shall not at any time exceed 25 % of the posts shown
against item Nos. 1 and 2 of the cadre in the schedule to the Fixation
of Cadre Strength Regulations. Now, if at a point of time this limit
is exceeded, direct recruits may have a just cause for complaint and
it may perhaps be held that to the extent of the excess the appoint-
ments by promotion are invalid and confer no rights of seniority over
H direct recruits. But, as we said, the Fixation of Strength Regulation
confer no rights on members of the Service and a mere breach of the
Regulation furnishes no cause of action to any member of the service
\
HARJEET SINGH v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 475

on the ground that his s~niority is affected in some round abou1 way< A 1
We may add that there is no suggestion that Rule 9(2) of the Recruit-
ment Rules was contravened.
J It was brought to our notice that several Senior cadre officers had
to be deputed to organise Battalions of the Punjab Armed Police which
came to be formed after the Chinese, aggression in 1962 and at the time B
of the Inda-Pakistan War in 1965. It was in the vacancies caused by
their deputation that Senior officers of the State Police Services were
appointed to cadre posts. Under Rule 6(A) (2) of the Indian Police
Service Recruitment Rules a direct recruit in the junior time scare of
pay C'an be appointed to a post in the Senior ti.Jne scale of pay if having
regard to his length of service, experience and performance he is found c
to be suitable for appointment to a post in the Senior time scale of
pay. It appears that, at that time, in Punjab, there was no direct recruit
in tl1e Junior tinJe scaile of pay who possessed experience of atleast
four years who could be thought of for appointment in the Senior post.
The State Government, therefore, had no option except to appoint ex-
D
perienced and suitable non-cadre officers to cadre posts. It was also
brought to our notice that no cadre officer who had been so deputed
suffered in any manner in the matter of his career.
It was repeatedly suggested that the State Governments were gene-
rally in the habit of adopting stratagem of sending cadre officer on depu-
tation in excess of the Deputation Reserve in order to enable Officers
of the State Services to officiate in cadre posts so as to further enable
them to get the benefit of such continuous officiation when finally ap-
pointed to an All India Service. Whatever truth tl1ere may be in the
suggestion it has to be remembered firstly that the appointment of non-
cadre officers to cadre posts is subject to the directions of the Central
F
Government who may terminate such appointment. The Central Gov-
ernment too is bound to obtain the advice of the, Union Public Service
Commission if the appointment is to extend beyond six months. Next,
it bas also to be borne in mind that non-cadre officers of proven merit
only are appointed to cadre posts. They are appointed to cadre posts
if they are already in the Select List and the appointments ~lso are made G
in accordance wth the order in which they are placed in the Select List.
We have earlier mentioned how the Select List itself if prepared under
the Indian Police Service Recruitment Rules after following an elabo-
rate procedure involving a thorough examination of various levels, of
the merit of the officers of the State Police Service. A State officer
whose name _appears on the Select List may expect to be appointed to a B
Cadre post and to be promoted to the Indian Police Service at any time
thereafter according to vacancy position. A direct recruit who ordi-
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A narily comes into the picture years after a State Officer's uame appears
on the Select List cannot have any real grievance that the promoted
officer is given an ante.rior date for the purpose of seniority since such
date can never be earlier than the date from which the junior most
direct recruit continuously officiated in a Senior post prior to the

• commencement of the conti1;mous officiation of the promoted officer.
We are also unable to appreciate the submission of Shri R. K. Garg
that every departure from a rule, which departure gives certain
advantages to one group of civil servants as against another neces-
sarily involves an encroachment of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed
by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutiop. The proposition is widely
c stated, far fetched in relation to the facts of the instant case and
not supported by N. K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat(') on
which Shri Garg relied. In Chauhan's case the Court was consider-
ing the effect of the breach of a 'Quota' rule fixing the proportion of
'direct recruits' and 'promotees'. In the present case, as already
noticed by us, there is no allegation of breach of the 'quota' rule ·
D
embodied in Rule 9 (2) of the Recruitment Rules. The Fixation of
Cadre Strength Regulations cannot be interpreted as comprising any
'Quota' rule. The consequential submission of Shri Garg that rule
3 (3 )(b), if so interpreted as to take into account officiation in con-
travention of the rules, offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Con-
stitution, therefore, lose& all force particularly in view of what
we have said about the true nature of the Fixation of Cadre Strength
Regulations. We also notice that the vires of Rule 3(3)(b) of the
Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules which
is in similar terms as rule 3 ( 3 )(b) of the Indian Police Service
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules was upheld by a Constitution Bench
F of this Court in A. P. Sharma v. Union of Indid. (')
In the light of our foregoing discussion we hold that the 'over
utilisation' of 'Deputation and Central Reserve' does not affect the
questions of assignment of the year of allotment and the seniority
of the appellants. The concurrent finding of the learned single judge
G and the Division Bench that Kapur's service as Commandant, P.A.P.
Battalion No. 25 was service in a Senior post was not challenged
before us. Shri Mridul argued that the records reveal that Kapur's
appointment to the posts of Director of Sports and Adrlitional Con-
troller of Stores was because of his exceptional ability and, therefore,
those posts must be treated as cadre posts. In any event, he sug-
H gested that we should invite the Government of India to suitably
(I) [1977] I S. C.R. 1037
(2) 1968 Service Law Reporter 582 ,
HARJEET SINGH. v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 477

relax the rules so as to enable Kapur's service as Director of Sports
and Additional Controller of Stores to be reckoned as service in
cadre posts. We cannot of course hold Kapur's service in non-
cadre posts as service in cadre posts. Nor can we give the direction
sought by Shri Mridul. It is of course open to Kapur to invoke the
power of the Government of India to relax the rules and it is for the
B
Government to take a just decision in the matter. We have no advice
to offer.
Both the Civil Appeals are allowed, the Judgment of the Division
Bench is set aside and the judgment of the Single Judge is restored.
Writ Petition Nos. 520-524 have been filed by some of the direct
recruits questioning the vires of rule 3 ( 3)(b) of the Indian Police c
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules and Rule 3 of the All India
Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960
which vests in the Government. of India the power to relax. We
have upheld the validity of Rule 3 (3 )(b) of the Indian Police Service
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules and the question of the vires of Rule·
D
3 of the All India Service (Conditions of Service residuary matters)
rules does not arise at present. The Writ Petitions are also
dismissed.

S.R. Appeals allowed and Petitions dismissed.

-~·