Holding

For promotee IPS officers, continuous officiating service counts only from the date of inclusion in the select list (or from the date of appointment, whichever is later), as mandated by Explanation (1) to Rule 3(3) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.

Summary

The case concerned direct recruits to the Indian Police Service (IPS) who appealed against a Central Administrative Tribunal order that allowed promotee officers from the State Police Service to count their continuous officiating service from the date they were included in the IPS select list for determining their year of allotment. The promotees had been posted to cadre posts before and after their inclusion in the select list, and claimed that this service should be counted, seeking an earlier year of allotment (1973). The Court examined the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, particularly Explanation (1) to Rule 3(3), which limits the period of continuous officiation for seniority to the later of the date of inclusion in the select list or the date of appointment to the senior post. It held that the promotees could only count service from their inclusion date, not the earlier postings, and that the postings were not illegal for seniority purposes. The Court also found that prior central concurrence was not required for select‑list officers who were not next in order. Consequently, the appeal of the direct recruits was dismissed.

Issues considered

The correct method for determining the year of allotment for IPS officers promoted from State Police Service under Rule 3 of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
Whether service rendered in cadre posts prior to inclusion in the IPS select list can be counted for seniority purposes.
Whether Rule 9 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 requires prior Central Government concurrence for the promotees' postings beyond three months.
Whether the promotees' postings violated any statutory provisions, rendering the service non‑countable.

Legislation cited

Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954s. Rule 9
Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Ruless. Rule 9
Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954s. Rule 3

Subjects

service lawseniorityyear of allotmentpromotionIPSRule 3Rule 9promoteedirect recruitCentral Administrative Tribunalcontinuous officiation

Judgment

A M.V. KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

JANUARY 27, 1994

B [J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

Service Law: l.P.S.(Cadre) Rules/l.P.S.(Regulation of Seniority) Rules,
1954:

C Rule 9/Rule 3(3) E.xplanation I-Direct recrnits and promotees-
Seniority-Year of allotment-Inclusion in Select list as per Promotion Regu-
lations-Continuous service rendered in cadre post from that date-Taking
into consideration for the purposes of detennining year of allotment-Validity
of.

D The appellants were direct recruits to the Indian Police Service and
Respondents 5-11 were promotees from State Police Service. The
promotees were included in the select list prepared in accordance with the
I.P.S. Promotion Regulations and even before their inclusion they were
already officiating in the cadre posts. Taking their dates of appointment
E to I.P.S. the Government of India assigned the year of allotment for
purposes of seniority. The promotees approached the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal claiming that since they officiated in the cadre post they were
entitled to count their service from the date of continuous officiation, and
consequently they would get the year 1973 as their year of allotment. The
Tribunal allowed their claim. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment, the
F appellant-direct recruits preferred the present appeals.
The appellants contended that the posting of the promotees in cadre
posts even prior to their inclusion in ·the select list and before their
appointment to I.P.S. was contrary to rules; that the continuation of the
respondents in cadre posts beyond three months of their posting was in
G clear violation of Rule 9 of the I.P.S. (Cadre) Rules, especially when there
was no prior concurrence of the Central Government; and that the posting
of the promotees in cadre posts was also illegal inasmuch as cadre officers
was available and, therefore, the service rendered by the promotees on the
basis of temporary local arrangement made before their appointment to
H the cadre could not be counted.
400
M.V.K. RAO v. U.0.1. 401

The respondents contended that the promotees were not seeking to A
-( count their service rendered in the cadre post prior to their inclusiou in

- the select post, but only the continuou~ officiating servke rendered in
cadre posts on and after their inclusion in the select list; and that none of
the appellant-direct recruits was eligible to bold the post when the
promotees were posted in the cadre posts; and, therefore, they bad no locus
B
standi to contest the claim of the promotees.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court
~
HELD: 1.1. Though the promotees were posted to cadre posts even
prior to the date of their inclusion in the select list, they do not claim to c
count it for the purpose of determining their year of allotment. By virtue
of the Explanation (1) to Rule 3 of the I.P.S. (Regulation of Seniority)
Rules, 1954 they arc entitled to count the lesser period alone, which in their
case happens to be their continuous officiation from the date of their
inclusion in the select list. This is the effect of Explanation (1) to Rule 3(3) D
of the said Rules. [408-F]
C+--
1.2. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding nor is any material
placed before this Court to show that on January 9, 1978 cadre officers
were available and that inspite of the same the said promotees were posted
to cadre posts. So also there is nothing on record to show that the posting E
of the promotees in cadre posts was by way of local or temporary arran-
gement. [409-B]

1.3. Though the State Government promptly intimated the Central
rl ""' Government of the posting of the promotees in cadre posts, the Central F
Government took an inordinately long time to respond and they wrote back
- only on January 5, 1985 disapproving the said posting not on ground ot
violation of Rule 9 of the I.P.S. Cadre Rules but on the ground of over-
utilisation of deputation reserve. The Tribunal rightly gave a finding that
it cannot constitute a relevant ground for depriving the promotees of their
service subsequent to January 9, 1978 for the purpose of Explanation (1) G
to Rule 3(3) of Seniority Rules, and the same is not disputed. [409-E-G]
•-ii..__
Syed Khalid Rizvi and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1993]
Suppl. 3 S.C.C. 575 & H.R. Kasturi Rangan v. Union of India & Ors., (C.A.
3891-95/93 dated 28.7.1993), referred to. H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2177 of
1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.1988 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. in 0.A. No. 395 of
1986.
B
WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 399, 398, 396 and 397 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dat~d 11.1.1991, 6.10.1989 &
C 19.9.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench,
Hyderabad in O.A. Nos. 191/88, 370/87, 213/88 & 173 of 1990.

R.F. Nariman, A. Raghuvir, M. Chandrasekharan, K. Madhava
Raddy, P.P. Rao, Ms. V.S. Rekha, K.R. Nagaraja, A.V.V. Nair, B. Rajesh-
D war Rao, Vimal Dave, Ms. R. Chhabra, Sudarsh Menon, T.V.S.N. Chari,
Ms. Promila Choudhary, Nikhil Naggar, P. Parmesaran, K.K. Manglam,
and K.K. Gupta for the appearing Parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J •.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 1988

1. The appellants are direct recruits to Indian Police Service (J.P.S.),
while the respondents 5 to 11 are promotees. In this appeal, directed
against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad,
the dispute pertains to the proper year of allotment to .be assigned to
F respondents 5 to 11. The Original Application in the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal was filed by the said respondents. The appellants as well as
respondents 12 to 14 in this appeal were impleaded as respondents 5 to
11. R~spondents 12 to 14 in this appeal are also direct recruits. Since they
did not join the appellants in filing this appeal, they have been impleaded
G as respondents. For the sake of convemence, we shall refer to the appel-
lants as direct recruits and to respondents 5 to 11 as promotees.

2. The promotees were substantive members of the Andhra Pradesh
>-
•
State Police Service. They were included. in the select list prepared under
and in accordance \vith the I.P.S. Promotion Regulations on 9th January,
H 1978. Even before the said date, all of them (except Sri K. Narsimha) were
M.V.K. RAO v. U.0.1. (JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 403

posted in cadre posts. They continued to officiate in such cadre posts even A
after January 9, 1978, till they were appointed to the l.P.S. Respondent No.
5 was appointed to I.P.S. on December 19, 1978, Respondent No. 6 on
September 20, 1979 and the remaining on November 13, 1979. If their dates
of appointment to I.P.S. is taken as the basis, Respondent No. 5 would be
entitled to be assigned 1974 as his year of allotment while the other B
respondents would get 1975 - and this is what the Government of India
did. The promotee- respondents' case, however, is that inasmuch as they-
have officiated continuously in a cadre post, they were entitled to count
their service atleast from January 9, 1978 (the date of their inclusion in the
selection list) for the purpose of determining their year of allotment and
that if so counted, they will get the year 1973 as their year of allotment. C
The Central Administrative Tribunal has upheld this claim of the Respon-
dents 5 to 11.

3. The four appellants and respondents 12 to 14 (direct recruits) have
been assigned 1974 as their year of allotment. This is not in question. Since
they were likely to be affected by the grant of relief claimed by the D
' promotees, they were impleaded as respondents in the Original Applica-
tion before the Central Administrative Tribunal. These direct recruits
contested the promotees' claim before the Tribunal, so did the Government
of India.
E
4. The main question in this appeal is whether the continuous of-
ficiating service rendered by the promotees in the cadre posts on and from
January 9, 1978 is liable to be taken into consideration for the purposes of
determining their year of allotment? As iridicated hereinabove, if this
service is counted they will be entitled i.o be assigned 1973 as their year of
allotment. Otherwise not. F

Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the appellants (direct
recruits) urged the following contentions:

• (1) the posting of the promotees in cadre posts even before their G
inclusion in the select list and before their appointment to I.P.S. is contrary
to rules and, therefore, of no effect.

(2) the continuation of the said respondents in cadre posts beyond
three months of their posting - at any rate, after the expiry of three months
from January 9, 1978 - is in clear violation of Rule 9 of the l.P.S. (Cadre) H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A Rules. Morever, they could not be continued in the cadre post beyond six
months unless the central government accorded prior concurrence thereto.
Admittedly, no such prior concurrence was obtained. As a matter of fact,
the Government of India disapproved the said posting. If so, there can be
no question of counting such service for any purpose whatsoever.
B (3) the posting of the promotees in the cadre posts was also illegal
inasmuch as on that date cadre officers were available. Ignoring the cadre
officers, the said promotees were posted to cadre posts in violation of the
Rules. For these reasons also, the said service cannot be counted.

c (4) by virtue of Explanation (2) to Rule 3 of the l.P.S. (Seniority)
Rules, the service rendered in the cadre post prior to their appointment to
l.P.S. cannot be counted or taken into consideration for the reason that it
was by way of temporary local arrangement.

D 5. Sri P.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the promotees con-
tested the validity and correctness of the contentions urged by the appel-
lants and submitted that the promotee-respondents are not seeking to
count their service rendered in the cadre posts prior to their inclusion in
the select list; they are only seeking to count the continuous officiating
service rendered by them in the cadre posts on and after their inclusi~n in
E the select list. In such a case there is no question of violation of any rules.
The learned counsel pointed out that it is not found by the Tribunal that
when any of these promotees was posted in cadre post, a cadre officer was
available. Counsel submitted that though the State Government addressed
the Central Government for granting approval of their posting, the Central
F Government rejected the same only on 5th January, 1985. Soon thereafter,
the promotees submitted a memorandum to the President of Jndia and
finding no response thereto, they approached the Tribunal in the year 1986.
Counsel further pointed out that when the promotee-respondents were
posted in cadre posts, none of the direct recruits concerned herein was
eligible to hold those posts and, therefore, they have no locus standi to
G contest the claim of the promotees.

6. A few relevant rules need be noticed for a pwper appreciation of
the controversy. Rule 3 of the 1.P.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954
prescribes the manner in which the year of allotment should be assigned
H to a member of the l.P.S. Rule 3, insofar as it is relevant, reads thus:
M.V.K. RAO v. U.O.I. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 405

"~.Assignment of Year of Allotment - (1) Every officer shall be A
assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions
hereinafter contained in this rule.

(2) [omitted as unnecessary]

(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service B
after the commencement of these rules shall be-

(a) where the officer is appointed to the Service on the results
of a competitive examination the year following the year in
which such examination was held;
c
(b) where the officer is appointed to the Service by promotion
in accordance with rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the year
of allotment of the junior-most among the officers recruited to
the Service in accordance with rule 7 of these Rules who
officiated continuously in a senior post from a da~e earlier than D

-" the date of commencement of such officiation by the former;

Provided that the year of allotment of an officer appointed to
the Service in accordance with rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules
who started officiating continuously in a senior post from a cadre
earlier than the date on which any of the officers recruited to the E
Service, in accordance with rule 7 of those Rules, so started
officiating shall be determined ad hoc by the Central Government
in consultation with the State Government concerned.

Explanation I. - In respect of an officer appointed to the Service
by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the F
Recrnitment Rules, the period of his continuous officiation in a
senior post shall, for the purposes of determination of his seniority;
count only from the date of the inclusion of his name in the Select
List, or from the date of his officiating appointment to such senior
post whichever is later. G
Explanation 2. - An officer shall be deemed to have officiated
continuously in a senior post from a certain date if during the
period from that date to the date of his confirmation in the senior
grade he continues to hold without any break or reversion a senior
post otherwise than as a purely temporary or local arrangement." H
406 · SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A (Rest of the rule omitted as unnecessary)

7. The purport of the Rule is: (i) in the case of a direct recruit, the
year of allotment shall be the year following the year in which the relevant
competitive examination was held; (ii) In the case of a promotee, his year
of allotment shall be the year of allotment assigned to the junior-most
B among the direct recruits who officiated continuously in a senior post from
a date earlier than the date of commencement of officiation by such
promotee; (iii) fo. the case of a promotee, the period of his continuous
officiation in a senior post shall count from the date of inclusion of his
name in the Select List or from the date of his continuous officiating
c appointment, whichever is later. Explanation (2) seeks to exclude the
period of temporary posting made by way of local arrangement from the
purview of continuous officiating service.

8. The next rule to be noticed is Rule 9 of the l.P.S. (Cadre) Rules.
Since this rule is of crucial relevance to this case, it would be appropriate
D to set out the Rule in its entirety, as it obtained at the relevant time:

"9. Temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts.
- (1) A cadre post in a State may be filled by a person who is not
a cadre officer if the State Government "or any of its Heads of
E Department to whom the State Government may delegate its
powers of making appointment to cadre posts"; is satisfied-

(a) that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three
months; or

F (b) that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling
the vacancy:

Provided that where a cadre post is filled by a non- select list
officer, or a select list officer who is not next in order in the select
list, under this sub-rule, the State Government shall forthwith
G report the fact to the Central Government together with the
reasons therefor.

(2) Where in any State, a person other than a cadre officer is
appointed to a cadre post for a period exceeding three months the
H State Government shall forthwith report the fact to the Central
-,... ..

M.V.K RAO v. U.0.1. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 407

Government together with the reasons for making the appoint- A
ment.

Provided that a non-select list officer, or a select list officer who
is not next in order in the select list shall be appointed to a cadre
post only with the prior concurrence of the Central Government.
B
(3) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or otherwise the
Central Government may direct that the State Government shall
terminate the appointment of such person and appoint thereto a
cadre officer and where any direction is so issued, the State
Government shall accordingly give effect thereto. c
(4) When a cadre post is likely to be filled by a person who is not
a cadre officer for a period exceeding six months, the Central
Government shall report the full facts to the Union Public Service

-- Commission with the reasons for holding that no suitable officer D
is available for filling the post and may in the light of the advice
given by the Union Public Service Commission give suitable direc-
tions to the State Government concerned."

9. A reading of Rule 9 indicates that it speaks of two categories of
officers, viz., (a) officers included in the Select List but not appointed to E
the l.P.S. and (b) non-cadre non-select-list officers (those who are neither
included in the select list nor appointed to I.P.S.). Sub-rule (1) says that
where a vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months or where
there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy, the State
Government may fill a cadre post by a person who is not a cadre officer. p
The proviso, however, says that where a cadre post is filled by a non-select
list officer or a select list officer who is not next in order in the said list,
the State Government shall forthwith report the fact to the Central Govern-
ment together with reasons for such posting. Sub-rule (2) says that where
a person other than a cadre officer is appointed to a cadre post for a period
exceeding three months the State Government shall forthwith report that G
fact to the Central Government together with the reasons for making the
appointment. The proviso to this sub-rule says that no non-select list officer
or a select list officer who is not next in the order in the said list shall be
appointed to a cadre post except with the prior concurrence of the Central
Government. Having regard to the context in which this proviso occurs, its H
408 SUPREM:ECOURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.

·A operatien appears to be confined to sub-~ule (2) alone, i.e., continuation
of a n,on-cadre·officer in a cadre post beyond three months. (It is, however,
not necessary for our ·purposes to express any definite opinion on this
asp~ct.) Sub-rule (3) empowers the Central Government to direct the State
·Government, on receipt of a report under sub- rule (2) or otherwise, to
B terminate the appojiitment of such a person and to appoint a cadre officer
.• thereto. Such direction is binding upon the State Government. Sub-rule (4)
creates an obligation upon the Central Government to consult the Union
Public Service Commission~where a cadre post is likely to be filled by a
non-cadre officer for a period exceeding six months. The sub-rule further
says that the C~ntral Government shall issue suitable directions in the light
·. C of the advice given by the U.P.S.C. This Rule, it is evident, is conceived as
a check upon the propensity of .the State Government to prefer their own
State officers in the matter of posting in cadre posts thereby seeking to
confer upon them undue benefits at the cost of other officers.

D 10. We may ne>..1 refer to Rule 9 of I.P.S. (Recruitment) Rule. The
Recruitment Rules speak of the several sources from which appointment .-~

. is made to the l.P.S. Rule 9 deals with recrUitment by promotion. It says
that the quota of ~he promotees shall.not·ex:c.eed 1/3 of the number of posts
shown against item 1 "and i of the· cacke in relation to that State in the
Schedule to the l.P.S. (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.
E
11. Let us now examine the facts of the case in the light of the above
rules. Though the promotees were posted to cadre posts even prior to the
date of their indusion in the select list, they do not claim to count it for
the purpose of determining their year of allotment. By virtue of the 'Ji'·
F Explanation (1) to ~ule 3 of the Seniority Rules, they are entitled to count
the lesser period alone, which in their case the lesser period alone, which
in their case happens to be their continuous officiation from the date of
their inclusion in the select list. This is the effect of the Explanation (1) to
Rue 3(3) of Seniority Rules. But, say the appellants-direct recruits, the
posting and continuance of the promotees in the cadre posts even sub-
G sequent to their inclusion in the select list is illegal, being contrary to Rules
and hence, it cannot be counted for any purpose whatsoever. The four
grounds urged by them in this behalf have been set out hereinbefore. With >-·
a view to clear the ground, we may say at one that the Tribunal has not
recorded any finding nor is any material placed before us to show that on
H January 9, 1978 any cadre officers were available and that inspite of the
M.V.K.RAO v.U.0.1.(JEEVANREDDY,J.) 409

same the said promotees \Vere posted to cadre posts. There is also no A
finding ......though it is not strictly relevant for the pres,ent purpose......... to
the effect that when the said promotees Were posted in a cadre post (first
continuous officiating posting) any cadre officers were available but were
ignored. Similarly, Sri Nariman's contention that by virtue of Explanation
(2) to Rule 3(3) of Seniority ,Rules, the promotees' service prior to their B
appointment to l.P.S cannot be counted for the purpose of determining the
year of allotment is equally unsustainable. No finding is recorded by the
Tribunal - nor any material placed before us to show - that the posting of
the promotees in cadre posts, particularly after January 9, 1978, was by way
of a local arrangement or temporary. We cannot also agree with Sri
Nariman that for continuance of these promotees beyond three months or C
six months, as the case may be, prior concurrence of the Central Govern-
ment was obligatory. The proviso to sub-rule (2) - which alone speaks of
prior concurrence - does not apply to select-list officers, unless the officer
'not next in order' in such list is appointed. It is not suggested that such
was the case in the matter of posting of any of the promotees concerned D
herein. The other requirement of Rule 9 of Cadre Rules, viz., the obligation

·-
of the State Government to report forthwith the said fact to the Central
Government together with the reasons for such appointment - provided by
sub-rule (2) - has been complied with. Indeed, the case of the promotees
is that though the State Government promptly i°i>timated the C~ntral
Government of their posting in cadre posts, the Central Government took E
an inordinately long time to respond and that wrote back only on January
5, 1985 disapproving the said posting - not on ground of violation of Rule
9 of Cadre Rules but on the ground of over- utilisation of deputation .
reserve. The said disapproval is also the subject matter of challenge in the
Original Application filed by the promotees in the Tribunal. The Tribunal
F
has gone into this aspect elaborately and has held that the alleged over-
utilisation of deputation reserve cannot constitute a relevant ground for
depriving the promotees of their service subsequent to January 9, 1978 for
the purpose of Explanation (1) to Rule 3(3) of Seniority Rules. No argu-
.ments have been addressed before us seeking to dispute the said finding.
G
12. In this view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to refer
to the decisions cited by counsel before us. All of them are referred to and
discussed elaborately in the judgme!lt of the Tribunal. The two later
judgment, viz., Syed Khalid Rizvi and Others v. Union of India and Others,
[1993] Suppl. 3 S.C.C. 575 and H.R. Kasturi Rangan v. Union of India & H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994J 1 S.C.R. ..._....---.

A Ors., C.A. 3891-95/93 dated 28.7.1993, refer to·and reiterate the principles
enunciated in the earlier judgments of this Court and the view taken by us
herein accords with the ratio of the said judgments. For the above reasons,
the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Civil Appeal No 399 of 1994. S.L.P. (C) No. 14045 of 1991
B
13. Leave granted.

No separate arguments are addressed in this matter. In the judgment
under appeal, the Tribunal directed the Central Government to assign the
C year of allotment to the applicants before it with reference to their con-
tinuous officiation. The two original applicants (Respondents 4 and 5 in
this appeal) were included in the select list on March 20, 1979 and they
were posted in a cadre post subsequent to the said date. Applying Explana-
tion (1) to Rule 3(3), the Tribunal directed that they shall be given the
benefit of continuous officiation in the cadre post, and that the Central
D Government shall determine the year of allotment and their seniority on
that basis. Since the said direction is consistent with the view taken by us
in Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 1988, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Civil Appeal No 398 of 1994. S.L.P. (C) No. 4861of1991
E 14. Leave granted.

No separate arguments were addressed in this appeal. It appears that
the original applicant, Sri D. Narayana Rao (Respondent No. 27 in this
appeal) was included in the select list approved on November 4, 1981. He
F was appointed to officiate in a cadre post on February 6, 1982 and he
continued to officiate as such till December 23, 1982 when he was ap-
pointed to the service. The Tribunal negatived his claim to count his
officiating service between July 19, 1979 and August 19, 1980 for the
purpose of determining his year of allotment. there is no appeal by the
applicant. The Tribunal has directed that the applicant (Respondent No.
G 27 in this appeal) is entitled to reci.,on seniority in the senior scale of the
l.P.S. from January 6, 1982 under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules and
that he is also entitled to be assigned 1977 as the year of allotment. It is
not submitted before us that on the reasoning of the Tribunal, the said
respondent (original applicant) is not entitled to 1977 as his year of >--
H allotment.
M.V.K. RAO v. U.O.I. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.J 411

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. A
Civil Appeal No 396 of 1994. S.L.P. (C) No. 9636 of 1992

15. Leave granted.

In the original application before the Tribunal from which this appeal B
arises, there were three applicants who are impleaded as Respondents 1
to 3 in this appeal. The Tribunal has found that inasmuch as the original
applicants were included in the select list of 1982, their seniority can be
counted only from the date of such inclusion. So far as the assignment of
year of allotment to the applicants is concerned, the Tribunal has directed
that the matter is governed by the majority judgment pronounced by it on C
September 5, 1991 in Original Application No. 214 of 1988 G.
Ramachandra Reddy v. Union of India & Ors., Following the said majority
judgment, the Tribunal directed the Union of India to fix the year of
allotment of the said applicants taking December 28, 1982 as the dates of
their continuous officiation in senior posts in accordance with the Rule. It D
is obvious that the said direction must be understood and acted upon in
accordance with the principle enunciated in paras 14 to 16 of the judgment
in Syed Khalid Rizvi and in this judgment (in Civil Appeal No. 2177 of
1988).

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. E
Civil Appeal No 397 of 1994. S.L.P. (C) No. 9637 of 1992

16. Leave granted.

In this case too, the Tribunal has directed the Union of India to F
determine the year of allotment to which the original applicants (impleaded
as Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal) are entitled to. The said two
respondents (original applicants) were included in the select list on
November 4, 1981. The first applicant, Sri K. Rushiya Rao was posted on
August 21, 1981 in a cadre post in which he continued to officiate till he
was appointed to I.P.S. on October 17, 1984. So far as the other applicant, G
Sri R.C. Venkateshwarlu is concerned, he was posted in a cadre post only
on June 9, 1983 wherein he continued to officiate till his appointment to
l.P.S. on October 17, 1984. So far as K. Rushiya Rao is concerned, the
Tribunal has directed that November 4, 1981 should be taken as the
relevant date for the purpose of determining his year of allotment. In the H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 1 S.C.R. '

A case of R.C. Venkateshwarlu, however, it was of the opinion that a strict
application of Explanation (I) to Rule 3(3) would result in grave injustice
to the said r.espondent for the several reasons stated by it and, therefore, r
it recotnmended that a relaxation may be granted to him so as to enable
him to treat November 4, 1981 as the relevant date for determining his year
B of allotment. We have not been pursuaded to hold that the directions made
by the Tri\mnal are in any manner contrary to law.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N. Appeals dismissed.