Holding

The Court held that while the State must prepare the select list annually, inclusion in that list does not vest a right to appointment or seniority, and the appellant’s claim to an earlier year of allotment cannot be sustained.

Summary

The appellant, a State Police Service officer promoted to Superintendent in 1976, was placed on the select list in 1977 and given seniority from April 30, 1978. He claimed a year of allotment of 1972 under the seniority rules, which the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected. The Supreme Court examined whether the failure to convene a selection committee and prepare an annual seniority list entitled the appellant to an earlier year of allotment, and whether the appointment‑by‑promotion regulations make such preparation a mandatory duty. Relying on Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, the Court held that preparation of the select list each year is a statutory obligation, but inclusion in the list does not create a vested right to appointment or seniority until the UPSC approves the list and the Central Government makes the appointment. Consequently, the appellant’s claim to a 1972/1973 year of allotment was untenable and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to convene a selection committee and prepare the annual seniority list deprives a promotee officer of the right to claim a specific year of allotment.
Whether the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 impose a mandatory duty on the State Government to prepare a select list annually.
Whether inclusion in the select list confers a substantive right to appointment and seniority in the Indian Police Service.
Whether the appellant is entitled to a year of allotment of 1972/1973 under the seniority rules.

Subjects

service lawpromotionsenioritypolice serviceselection committeeappointment by promotion regulationsyear of allotmentstatutory dutylegitimate expectation

Judgment

A RAMCHANDRA DAYARAM GAWANDE
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 10, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law :

!PS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955/IPS (Regulation
C of Seniority) Rules, 1954//PS (Cadre) Rules, 1954:
Regulation 9/Rule 3(3)(b)/Rule 5(1)-Appointment to !PS cadre by
promotion from State Police Service-Claim for seniority and year of allot-
ment-Failure to convene a meeting for selection for candidates and prepara-
tion of annual seniority list-Held, appointment of the promotee officer to
D Indian Police Service by Central Government is mandatory requirement to
claim seniority and the year of allotment-Candidate put in the s.elect list does
hot acquire any substantive right to appointment until approval of the list by
UPSC and appointment by Central Government-Mere giVing promotion to
a State Police Officer and posting him to a cadre post does not clothe him
E with a right to be appointed with effect from the year in which he was
temporarily promoted and posted to cadre post-<Iovemment have prpperly
explained the circumstances in which the Committee could not meet to
consider the claims for selection of the candidates.

Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1993] Supp. 3 SCC
F 576, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9060-61
of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order of the Central Administrative
G Tribunal Bombay Bench dated 18.8.95 in O.A. No. 557/90 and Judgment
and Order dated 28.9.95 in R.P. No. 93/95 in 0.A. No. 557 of 1990.

K. Madbava Reddy, A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants.

V.N. Ganpule, R.N. Keshwani and D. M. Nargolkar for the Respon-
H dents.
856
'I
-\

R.D. GAWANDE v. U.O.l. 857

The following Order of the Court was delivered : A
.., ~ Leave granted.

>ot We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

The appellant appointed to a substantive post in State Police Service B
'1 was promoted as a Superintendent of Police in senior time scale on May
11, 1976. He was brought on select list for the year 1977. He was given
seniority in the All India Police Service from promotee quota w.e.f. April
30, 1978. Since he was brought on the select list on the said date under
Rule 3(3)(b) of the JPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rues, 1954 (for short, the
'Rules'), the appellant claimed the year of allotment, i.e., 1972 under JPS
c
\
' (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, which was rejected by the Tribunal
in the impugned order dated August 18, 1995 in OA No. 557/90.

' Notice was issued confining to the question as to what would be the
consequence of failure to convene a meeting for selection of the candidates D
and preparation of the annual seniority list.

It is stated in the counter affidavit that on November 23, 1976 in a
• >
meeting, Selection Committee considered the claims of a total number of
30 State Police Officers and ultimately found 9 officers to be brought on
E
the select list. Notification was issued by the Government of India on June
17, 1977 to appoint 8 officers from the select list of 1976 under Rule 5(1)
of the JPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. By notification dated August 27, 1977, the
list of officers for the selection was to be considered but it could not be
,. considered on account of the strike in the State and the meeting was
postponed. Ultimately, a meeting came to be held on February 15, 1978 F
and the names of 5 persons were listed in the select list of whom the
appellant was 5th in the order of merit. The appellant came to t>e given
the seniority from April 30, 1978 when the vacancy from promotee quota
has arisen.

Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
G
A contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Syed Iha/id Rizvi &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 576, it is mandatory on
the part of the State to prepare every year the select list of Deputy Superin-
.'
-;
tendent of Police to fill up vacancies which have arisen in the year to the quota
and to promote them to the JPS cadre under Regulation 9 of the JPS H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 which was held to be
mandatory. It is incumbent upon the State Government to conduct a meet-
ing and select the officers and allot the year of allotment to fulfil the
legitimate expectation of the right to consider for promotion. Though ex-
planation has been sought to be given by the Government for failure to hold
the meeting, it must be considered that the appellant had lost the chances
B for promotion and the year of allotment since the appellant has been
continuously officiating from the year 1976 and that, therefore, the year of
allotment of 1973 is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention.

The effect of the inter-play of !PS (Recruitment Rules), 1954, !PS
(Cadre) Rules, 1954, !PS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955
C and !PS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 was considered thread-bare
in Rizvi's case by a Bench of 3 Judges to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy,
J.) was a member. Recruitment to the Indian Police Service is from two
sources, namely, direct recruitment and by promotion from the members
of State Police Service holding substantive posts. No employee has a right
D to promotion but has right to be considered for promotion according to
Rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service but every
incumbent of a substantive post in lower cadre has a legitimate expectation
for promotion and to be considered for promotion in accordance with the
< •
Rules. Unless the officer of a State Police Service is brought on the select
list and appointed to a cadre post in accordance with rules, he does not
E acquire right to assignment of the year of allotment. Eligibility for con-
sideration has been prescribed in !PS (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations. Candidate that fulfills the qualifications requires to be con-
sidered for appointment by promotion as per Rule 9 thereof. Preparation
of the select list in accordance with the Appointment by Promotion Regula-
F tions is a pre-condition which requires to be prepared every year. It was
held to be a mandatory duty. It subserves the object of the Rules and afford
an equal opportunity to promotee officers to reach higher echelons of the
service. It would inculcate dedicated service assiduously discharging the
duties With integrity, honesty, exhibiting ability, straight forwardness with
G missionary zeal of self-confidence. The failure to prepare the list and
accord chances of promotion would inhibit efficacy in service and generate
dishonesty and manipulation. Preparation of annual list and appointment
to service gives, apart from equal opportunity to augment efficacy in
service, provides equal chances of promotion to the officers of State Police
Service to provide harmony among direct recruits and promotees and make
H
R.D. GAWANDE v. U.0.1. 859

them accountable to proper implementation of law and order. The regula- A
tions req"ire preparation of select list annually and revision of the list and
review thereof from time to time as adumbrated in the regulations. It was,
therefore, held in Rizvi's case that preparation of select list every year is
mandatory. The State Government is enjoined to account for dereliction
of the Statutory duty satisfactorily to the Court.
B
Regulation 3 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations en-
joins the State Government to constitute a committee consisting of all the
officers enumerated therein to select the proip.otees. Under Regulation
5(1), a committee may ordinarily meet at intervals not exceeding one year
prepare a list of the members of the State Police Service as are found to C
be suitable for promotion to the Indian Police Service. The manner and
methodology of the preparation has been enumerated in the Regulations,
the details of which are not material for the purpose of this case. Regula-
tion 6 mandates the State Government to forward the select list to the
UPSC for approval along with the records and remarks of the members D
ond also send their observations on the recommendations of the committee
to the UPSC. Reguiation 7 requires UPSC to consider the service record
and it is empowered to change the order of the merit. As seen under the
Appointment by promotion Regulations, the list should be prepared in the
order of merit as envisaged therein. The UPSC, whiie considering the order
of merit, is empowered to revise the order and recommend to the Govern- E
ment of India for appointment, after obtaining the comments on the
proposed changes from the Stale Government and consideration thereof.
The modified seniority lists recommended by the UPSC shall become final
list. The Union of India shall appoint the promotee officers in the order
of merit to the vacancies arisen for their quota from the list approved by , F
the UPSC. Under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the C_entral Govern-
ment shall make the-appointment in the order in which the names of the
members of the Police Service appeared in the select list. The select list
requires to be changed from time to time by review and revision and that,
therefore, the candidate put in the select list does not acquire any substan-
tive right to appointment until approval of the list by the UPSC and G
appointment by the Central Government. The inclusion of a person's name
in the select list in any order, therefore, does not given that person a vested
right to have his name in the select list continued in the succeeding years.
The object of preparing select.list every year and revision and review from
time to time itself would indicate that the inclusion of the name in the select H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A list creates only inchosteness until he gets his appointment in accordance
with the rules.

In para 8 of the .Judgment in Rizvi's case, this Court pointed out that
the select committee should consider the eligibility and suitability of the
members of the State Police Service on the basis of merit, ability and
B suitability. Seniority will be considered only where merit and suitability are
approximately equal and it should be prepared the list of such suitabl~
officers in the order of merit in each category such as outstanding, very
good, good etc. and would send the select list to the State Government.
The State Government with its comments should forward the same to the
c UPSC for approval. It would, thus, be seen that mere giving promotion to
a State Police Officer and posting him to a cadre post docs not cloth him
with a right to be appointed with effect from the year in which he was
temporarily promoted and posted to cadre post. Inclusion in the selection
list and appointment in accor<lancc with the rules are conditions precedent.
D An officer including in the merit list and continuously officiated in the
cadre post, gets his seniority, \Vhen the vacancies have arisen in proportion
to the percentage prescribed to the promotee officers from the dale he was
put in the select list and appointed in accordance with the rules or
continuously officiated in the cadre post after putting in the select list
without break. The year of allotment shall be nei.t below the junior-most - t.
E direct recruit selected by the direct recruitment continuously officiated in
a cadre post. In Paragraph 15, this Court considered the seniority rules and
held as under :

"Rule 3(1) of Seniority Rules adumberated that every officer shall
F be assigned the year of allotment in accordance with Seniority
Rules. Rule 3(3), which is relevant to this case, declares that the
year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service after the
seniority rules came into an officer appointed to the Service after
the seniority rules came into force, shall be as follows: (i) the year
of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the year following
G the year in which competitive examination was held: (proviso
omitted) (ii) officer appointed to the Indian Police 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
H (direct recruit) who officiated continuously in a senior post from
R.D.GAWANDE1•. U.0.1. 861

a date earlier than the date of the commeneement of such officia- A
tion by the former. Provided that the year of allotment of an officer
appointed to the Service in accordance with Rule 9 of the Recruit-
ment Rules who started officiating continuously in a senior post
from a date earlier than the date on which any of the officers
recruited to be service, in accordance with Rule 7 of those Rules,
B
so started officiating shall be determined ad hoc by the Central
Government in consultation \vith the Stale Government con-
cerned. 11

Similarly, the Promotion Rules and Recruitment Rules were considered in
paragraph 16 and stated the law as under : C

"It could, thus, be seen that an officer appointed lo the Indian
Police Service by promotion from State Services to the Central
• Services in accordance with Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules read
with Promotion Regulation 9, his year of allotment is that of the D
junior-most among the direct recruit officers who officiated con-
tinuously in a senior post from a <late earlier than the date of the
commencement of such officiation by the former. The continuous
officiation of the promotee officers appointed under Rule 9 of the
Recruitment Rules earlier than the date on which direct recruit
officers started officiation, should be determined ad hoc by the E
Central Government. By operation of Explanation 1 the period of
continuous officiation of the promotee officer in the senior post
for the purpose of determining his seniority should count only from
the date of his inclusion in the select-list or from the date of his
• continuous· officiation in such senior post whichever is later. As a F
consequence, though the promotee officer continues to officiate
earlier to his being brought into the select-list, he gets his seniority
on his appointment to th.e senior post from the date on which he
was brought into select-list, only from the date of appointment, or
continuous officiation without break whichever is later."
G
It would, therefore, be clear that the Committee prepare the select
list in the order of merit and forward the same to the State Government..
It is the duty of the State Government to send the said list with its
comments to the VPSC who in turn finalises the select list and prepares
the list in the order of merit. In case, it revises the order of merit as per H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A law it forms the final list. Appointment of the promotee officer to the
Indian Police Service by the Central Government are mandatory require-
ments to claim seniority in the Indian Police Service and the year of
allotment. The Government have properly explained the circumstances in
which the Committee could not meet lo consider the claims for selection
of the candidates. Preparation of the list in the order of merit approved by
B UPSC and appointment to the post in accordance \vith the rules was follow
thereafter.

In this case, it is not in dispute that a commiaee was constituted and
was to hold the meeting in December but since the strike of the State
C Government employees was continuing, the meeting was cancelled. Ul-
timately, the Committee met in February, 1978 and selected the candidates
who are found to be eligible and put them in the select list. It is explained
in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that direct recruits con-
tinuously officiating from the year 1976 were given the year of allotment of
1972 and tha~ therefore, the appellant cannot get any year earlier then the
D year 1973. The placement of the direct recruits also has been mentioned
in the counter affidavit. Under these circumstances, the year of allotment
of the appellant of 1973 is not vitiated by any error of law warranting
interference.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
E
R.P. Appeals dismissed.

.