Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANR. ETC.versusRAHUL RASGOTRA AND ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 38
- Decided
- 1 February 1994
Holding
An exempted probationer is deemed a member of the IPS and a ‘cadre officer’, so cadre allocation may be made before joining training and the retrospective explanation is merely clarificatory.
Summary
The Union of India appealed against two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had allowed the challenges of cadre allocations made to two Indian Police Service probationers who had been granted exemption from training. Rahul Rasgotra, selected in 1988, was allotted a joint Manipur‑Tripura cadre in December 1989 as a probationer of the 1989 batch, although he joined training only in 1990 as an exempted probationer. Desh Raj Singh, selected in 1989, was allotted the Orissa cadre as a 1990‑batch probationer. Both argued that cadre allocation could be made only after they became ‘cadre officers’ by joining training. The Court held that an exempted probationer is deemed a member of the IPS and therefore a ‘cadre officer’ for purposes of Rule 5(1) of the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954; the retrospective explanation added to that rule merely clarified an existing position. Consequently, cadre allocation may be made before the officer joins training, and the Tribunal’s orders were set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a person granted exemption from probationary training (an ‘exempted probationer’) is a ‘cadre officer’ within the meaning of Rule 5(1) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 for the purpose of cadre allocation.
- Whether the retrospective explanation inserted in Rule 5(1) (effective from 1 January 1988) is applicable to the pending applications before the Tribunal.
- Whether cadre allocation can be validly made before the officer actually joins the training.
Legislation cited
- Indian Police Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955s. Regulation 7
- Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954s. Rule 2(a), s. Rule 3, s. Rule 4, s. Rule 5
- Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954s. Rule 10, s. Rule 2(e), s. Rule 2(ee)
- Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954s. Rule 2(aa), s. Rule 4, s. Rule 6, s. Rule 7
- Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988s. Rule 3, s. Rule 4
Subjects
cadre allocationexempted probationerIndian Police Serviceretrospective amendmentCentral Administrative Tribunalseniority rulesinterpretation of service rules
Judgment
A UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANR. ETC.
v.
RAHUL RASGOTRA AND ORS. ETC.
FEBRUARY 1, 1994
B [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Indian Police Service(Cadre) Rules, 1954: Rules 2(a), 3,4,5 and Ex-
planation. 'Cadre Officer'-lnterpretation of-Held includes an 'Exempted
Probationer'-lnsertion of Explanation in Sub Rule 5(1)-£ffect of-Held
C clarificatory in nature.
Indian Police Service-Selection-Exemption from training with Of-
ficers selected in the same batch-Training with Officers selected in the next
batch-Allocation of cadre with officers selected in the same batch and not
with officers of next batch-Held valid--Purpose of Cadre allocation-Ex-
D plained.
Indian Police Service(Recrnitment) Rules, 1954: Rules 2(aa), 4,6, and
7-Scope of
Indian Police Serice(Appointment by Competitive Examination)
E Regulations, 1955-Regulation 7-Scope of
Indian Police(Probation) Rules 1954.
Rule 2(ee)-'Exempted Probationer'-Who is-Rule JO-Scope of
F Indian Police Service(Regulation of seniority) Rules, 1988: Rules 3 and ·
4-Scope of
Practice and Procedure.
Government cases-Failure to produce record required by Cowt and
G slipshod conduct of cases by Govt. deprecated-Need for taking urgent steps
in this regard emphasised.
Respondent No. 1 in tb,e first of the two appeals, selected for the
Indian Police Service in the examination held in 1988 and a probationer
of 1989 batch, was granted exemption from joining training with other
H probationers of 1989 batch since he wanted to appear in the next examina-
508
U.0.1. v. RAHUL RASG01RA 509
tion foF improving his prospects. However, he did not succeed and· he A
·-+ joined the training in 1990 as an exempted probationer of 1989 batch along
with probationers of 1990 batch. In terms of Rule 5 of the Indian Police
Service(Cadre) Rules, 1954, cadre allocation was made to him in the joint
cadre of States of Manipur and Tripura as probationer of 1989 batch.
The other respondent in the connected appeal, selected for Indian B
Police Service in 1989 examination and a probationer of 1990 batch also
sought permission to appear in the next examination but later withdrew
his request and joined the training along with probationers of 1990 batch
and was allotted Orissa Cadre as a probationer of 1990 batch.
Both the respondents filed applications before the Central Ad·
c
ministrative Tribunal challenging their cadre allotment. In the meantime
an explanation was added to Rule S, giving it retrospective effect from
1.1.1988 which provided that for the purposes of Rule 5 'Cadre Officer'
includes a person allotted to Indian Police Service and granted extension
of time to join the service. D
The Tribunal allowed their claim but held that retrospective amend-
ment of Rule 5 inserting explanation therein was inapplicable to the case
of Respondents.
Against the decision of Tribunal, Union of India preferred appeals E
in this Court.
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that cadre allocation
of an officer ean be made only when he has become a member of the IPS
by appointment to the service which happens when he joins the training
on his appointment and not earlier; that one of the respondents having F
joined the training in 1990, his cadre allocation in 1989 was made when he
was not a 'Cadre Officer', and fresh cadre allocation should be made in
his case along with the officers of the 1990 batch.
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of the Tribunal, G
this Court
HELD: The claim made by the respondents is unten~ble. The object
and purpose of cadre allocation to the selected candidate who had been
alloted to a particular Service is merely to indicate the State Cadre to
which he would belong in the service and it is not necessary for him to H
510 SUPREME COURT REPOrt.TS (1994) 1 S.C.R.
A actually join the training. The eumber of total vacancies in the service and
those available in the State Cadres for a particular batch being known and
so also the total number of candidates selected at the competitive examina·
tion with their comparative position in order of merit, nothing mc1re is
needed to perform the exercise of cadre allocation at that stage and no
useful purpose is served by postponing t!J.ilt exercise to a later date. There
B is thus no reason why the cadre allocation is required to be deferred till a
candidate has joined the training after being allotted the particular service
on the basis of his comparative position in merit among the selected
candidates. (520-C; 517-H; 518-A-C]
C 2. The incident of granting, exemption from probationary training is
itself indicative of the fact that for all practical purposes, 'Exempted
Probationer' is treated as a member of the Indian Police Service and is
granted exemption from commencing his probationary trai'rling. There is
thus no reason why for the purpose of cadre allocation, he cannot be
treated as a probationer and, therefore, a member of the Indian Police
D Service. [518-E-G]
3. The Indian Poiice Service(Probation) Rules, 1954 read as a whole
treat the exempted probationer also as a probationer of the same batch for
all practical purposes and, therefore, as a member of the Indian Police
E Service of the same batch as any other probationer of that batch who is not
an exempted probationer. The meaning of 'cadre officer' in Rule 5(1) of the
Indian Police Service(Cadre) Rules, 1954 has, therefore, to be understood
to mean a member of the Indian Police Service in this manner. [519-B-C]
4. The Explanation added to sub-rule(l) of Rule 5 retrospectively is
F obviously to clarify this position which is implicit in the provisions even
without the aid of this explanation. [520-B]
5. The view taken-by the Tribunal that the retrospective amendment
of Rule 5(1) by insertion of the Explanation therein w.e.f. 1.1.1988 is
G inapplicable to the respondent's application which was pending before the
Tribunal at the time the amendment was made, is untenable. The explana·
tion is merely clarificatory of the existing position. [520-D-E]
6.1. The manner in which the cases on behalf of the Government are
generally conducted even in this Court and also when the Government
H comes to this Court to overcome the consequence of an adverse order made
U.0.1. v. RAHUL RASG01RA 511
against it is a matter of deep distress. [520-F] A
-+ 6.2. In the instant case, the utter helplessness expressed by the
Additional Solicitor General in obtaining and producing the documents
from the concerned authorities shows the apathy of the persons respon-
sible for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Government of India. It
is not sure whether such lapses of the persons responsible for conduct of B
the case on behalf of the Government are deliberate or inadvertent but they
are certainly culpable which need to be investigated by the concerned
authorities to identify the delinquents and punish them in public interest.
It is time that the derelicts are also had accountable and liable for the loss
of public money due to their lapses. The stage is now reached for taking C
drastic steps to arrest further decadence and to implement the avowed
promises held out for improvement of the working of the system. [521-C-F]
6.3. Governments being the largest litigants, redical improvement is
needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing frivolous litiga-
tion and ensuring proper conduct of the necessary litigation. Unless the D
desirable steps in this behalf are taken in the right earnest, any number
of seminars and conferences to devise means for reducing the backlog in
courts is an exercise in futility and the resolutions made therein, are empty
slogans. It is reiterated with the found hope that the concerned authorities
would wake up to the true malaise and work to make the programme of E
improving its machinery, a reality. [521-F-H]
Union of India and Ors. v.A. Radhakrishnan and Ors., [1991] 3 S.C.R.
895, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5414 of p
1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.1992 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1478 of 1992.
WITH G
Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 1993.
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswamy, Man-
mohan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Monika Mobil, C.V.S. Rao and Hemant
Sharma for the Appellants. H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.
A P.P. Rao, N.N. Goswamy, V.J. Francis, V. Subramanian, A.K. BOO.era
and S.M. Garg for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ..
B VERMA, J. 1. Rahul Rasgotra, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No.
54N of 1992 was selected for the Indian Police Service in the combined
Civil Services Examination held in the year 1988, while Desh Raj Singh,
respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 1993 was selected for the
Indian Police Service in the combined Civil Service Examination held in
the year 1989. Rahul Rasgotra was, therefore, a probationer in the I.P.S.
C belonging to the 1989 batch, while Desh Raj Singh was an I.P.S.
probationer of the 1990 batch. Rahul Rasgotra was granted exemption
from joining training with order probationers of the 1989 batch of I.P.S.
since he wanted to appear in the next examination held iu the year 1989 in
an attempt to improve his prospects by getting selected for a better Service.
However, he did not succeed and he joined the training in August 1990 as
D an exempted probationer of the 1989 batch along with probationers of the
1990 batch. Desh Raj Singh had also sought permission to appear in the
next examination but he later withdrew his request and joined the training
along with the probationers of the 1990 batch. Rahul Rasgotra was ranked
168 in the 1989 batch and according to his rank the cadre allocation made
E to him on 28.12.1989 was in the joint cadre of the State of Manipur and
Tripura. There is no dispute that according to his rank in the 1989 batch,
the cadre allocated to him is appropriate. The claim of Rahul Rasgotra is
that the cadre allocation to him should be made treating him as a
probationer along with the 1990 batch and not 1989 batch since as an
exempted probationer of the 1989 batch he had joined the training along
·F with probationers of the 1990 batch; and on this basis, he would get
allocation to the cadre of a State better than Manipur and Tripura.
However, he does not indicate the m~er in which he can be mixed with
probationers of the 1990 batch or be given a rank with them. Desh Raj
Singh was allotted the Orissa Cadre as a probationer of the 1990 batch,
but he claimed allotment to his home State of Uttar Pradesh. He too is
G aggrieved by the allotment of Orissa Cadre to him. Both of them filed
applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the
cadre allotment. Their claim has been allowed by the Tribunal. Hence
these appeals by special leave are filed by the Union of India.
H We may now refer to some relevant provisions.
U.0.1. v. RAHULRASGOTRA[VERMA,J.) 513
2. The Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 provide for con- A
-+ stitution. of cadres, allocation of members to various cadres and certain
ancillary matters. Rule 2(a) defines 'cadre officer' to mean a member of
the Indian Police Service. Rule 3 provides that there shall be constituted
for each State or group of States an Indian Police Service Cadre. Rule 4
deals with the strength and composition of each of the cadres constituted B
under Rule 3. Rule 5 which is material reads as under:
"5. Allocation of members to various cadres. - 5(1) The alloca-
tion of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the
Central Government in consultation with the State Government or
State Government concerned. c
5(2) The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the
State Governments concerned, transfer a cadre officer from one
cadre to another cadre."
D
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, in terms, requires the Central Government to make
allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres in consultation with the
State Government or State Governments concerned. Sub-rule (2) of Rule
5 provides for transfer of a cadre officer from one ca~e to another by the
Central Government with the concurrence of the State Government con- E
cerned.
3. The main argument in these appeals by Sl:tri P.P. Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No. 1 is that the cadre allocation can be made by
the Central Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 only of F
a 'cadre officer' as defined in Rule 2(a) which means a member of the
Indian Police Service; and, therefore, it can be made of an officer only
when he has become a member of the Indian Police Service by appoint-
ment to the Service which happens when the concerned officer joins the
training on his appointment and not earlier. The argument is that on
selection as a result of the competitive examination and allotment of a G
particular Service to the successful candidate, he does not become a
member of the Service which happens only when he is appointed to the
Service by joining the training. On this basis, it was contended, that Rahul
Rasgotra having joined the training in August 1990, the cadre allocation
made in his case in December 1989 after being exempted from joining the H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.
A training along with other officers of the 1989 ·batch, was made when he was
not a 'cadre officer' which he became only in August 1990 on joining the
training with officers of the 1990 batch. It was submitted, that the cadre
allocation of Rahul Rasgotra in December 1989 being made prior to his
joining the training in August 1990, the power under Rule 5(1) was then
B not available and a fresh cadre allocation has to be made in his case on
the basis of facts existing in August 1990 along with the officers of the 1990
batch who had joined the training at the same time. The submission is, that
on this basis he expects allocation to a better cadre to which he is entitled
on consideration for cadre allocation along with officers of the 1990 batc;:h.
C 4. We find no merit in the contention of Shri P.P. Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No. 1.
5. The Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 define 'direct
recruit' in Rule 2(aa) to mean a person appointed to the Service after
D recruitment under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4. Rule 4 deals with
method ofrecruitment to the Service and clause (a) of sub-rule (1) therein
provides the method of a competitive examination. Rule 4(2) requires
determination of number of persons to be recruited by each method of
recruitment on each occasion as may be required to fill the :vacancies
E during any period of recruitment. Rule 6 provides for appointment to the
Service by the Central Government according to the prescribed methods.
Rule 7 deals with recruitment by competitive examination. Respondent No.
1 in both these appeals were so appointed.
6. The Indian Police Service (Appointment by Competitive Examina-
F tion) Regulations, 1955 have been framed in pursuance of Rule 7 of the
Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, wherein Regulation 7
provides for preparation of the list of successful candidates arranged in
order of merit of the candidates as a result of the competitive examination.
G 7. The Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, in Rule 2(e),
define 'probationer' to mean a person appointed to the Service on proba-
tion and include an exempted probationer when he is appointed to the
Service on probation. Rule 2(ee) defines 'exempted probationer' to mean
a person 'who, on being allocated to the Service', has expressed his inten-
H tion to appear at the next examination and has been permitted to abstain
U.0.1. v. RAHULRASGOTRA[VERMA,J.] 515
from probationary training in order to so appear. Obviously, allocation to A
the Service is complete in the case of the an 'exempted probationer' also.
It is in this sense that Rahul Rasgotra was .in exempted probationer of the
1989 batch. Rule 3 relates to period of probation. Rule 5 deals with training
of the probationer. Rule 10 therein relates to seniority of probationers and
reads as under: B
"10. Seniority of Probationer. - 10(1) The Central Government
shall prepare a list in two parts of all probationers who are appointed
to the Service on the results of the same competitive examination.
The first part shall consist of the probationers other than the
exempted probationers and the second part shall consist of the C
exempted probationer who were selected at the same Competitive
examination. The probationers included in the first part shall be
placed-bloc above the exempted probationers included in the
second part. The list shall be arranged in the order of merit which
shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of marks D
obtained by each probationer or exempted probationer, as the case
may be.
(a) at the Competitive examination;
(b) in respect of his record in the Lal Bahadur Shastri National E
Academy of Administration and the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
National Police Academy; and
(c) At the final examination.
F
Provided that if two or more probationers have secured equal
number of marks in the aggregate, their order of merit shall be the
order of their dates of birth.
10(2) The seniority inter se of the probationers, who are as-
signed the same year of allotment, shall be determined in accord- G
ance with the list prepared under sub-rule (1)." (Emphasis
Supplied)
8. The Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988
are also material. Rules 3 and 4, in so far as they are material, read as H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.
A under:
"3. Assignment of year of allotment. - (1) Every offi~er shall be
assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions
hereinafter contained in these rules.
B (2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at the commen-
cement of these rules shall be the same as has been assigned
to him or may be assigned to him by the Central Government
in accordance with the rules, orders and instructions in force
immediately before the commencement of these rules.
c (3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service
after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows: -
(i) the year of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the
year following the year in which the competitive examination
D was held;
Provided that, in the case of exempted probationers, as defined
in clause (ee) of rule 2 of the I.P.S. (Probation) Rules, 1954, and
direct recruit officers, who are permitted to joiri probationary
training under sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the 1.P.S. (Probation) Rules,
E 1954, with the direct recruit officers of a subsequent year of
allotment, they shall be assigned that subsequent year as the year
of allotment.
xxx xxx xxx
F 4. Inter-se seniority of the officers. - The inter-se seniority of the
officers who are assigned the same year of allotment shall be in
the following order and in each category the inter-se seniority shall
be determined in the following manner:-
G (i) direct recruit officers shall be ranked inter-se in the order
of merit as determined in accordance with rule 10 of the Indian '
Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954;
xxx xxx xxx"
H These are the relevant provisions of the present context.
U.0.1. v. RAHULRASGOTRA[VERMA,J.] 517
9. It may also be mentioned -that an explanation was added at the A
end of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules,
1954 by a Government of India Notification published in the Gazette of
India on 13.1.1993 which is deemed to have come into force on 1.1.1988.
It reads as under:
B
"EXPLANATION: For the purposes of this sub-rule, 'cadre
officer' includes a person allotted to the Indian Police Service on
the basis of a competitive examination held under sub-rule (1) of
rule 7 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read
with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Competitive Ex- C
amination) Regulations, 1955 and granted extension of time to join
the service."
It does appear that this retrospective amendment by insertion of the
explanation in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 is clarificatory in nature and was as
a result of the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal in such D
matters. With this explanation, there can be no doubt that an exempted
probationer like Rahul Rasgotra would be a 'cadre officer' for the purpose
of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 for exercise of the power
of the cadre allocation to him in accordance with Rule 5 even before he
joins the training. The question is: Whether this was the position even E
without the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5? We have no doubt that
this was so.
10. The various steps leading to the selection and appointment of a
candidate to an All Indian Service like the Indian Police Service as a result
of a combined competitive examination and allocation of the State Cadre F
to him are these, namely, (i) competitive examination; (ii) selection in the
competition and determination of his order of merit; (iii) allocation of the
particular All India Service to him based on his position in the order of
merit; and (iv) allocation of the State Cadre to him. It is, therefore, obvious
that allocation of the State Cadre is made after the stage for allotting the G
particular All India Service like the Indian Police Service has been made,
to the selected candidate. The object and purpose of cadre allocation to
the selected candidate who has been allotted to a particular Service is
merely to indicate the State Cadre to which he would belong in the service
and it is not necessary for this purpose for him to actually join the tJaining. H
I
-4
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 1 S.C.R.
A The number of total vacancies in the service and those available in the State
Cadres for a particular batch being known and so also the total number of
candidates selected at the competitive examination with their compar,.ative
position in order of merit, nothing more is needed to perform the exercise
of cadre allocation at that stage and no useful purpose is served by ..
B postponing that exercise to a later date. There is thus no reason why the
cadre allocation is required to be deferred till a candidate has joined the
training after being <1llotted the particular Service like the Indian Police
Service on the basis of his comparative position in merit among the selected
candidates. The only question, therefore, is: Whether the Indian Police
C Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 forbid performance of this exercise before the
officer has actually joined the training after being allotted ~o the Indian
Police Service?
11. 'Exempted probationer' in Rule 2(ee) of the Indian Police Service
(Probation) Rules, 1954 is defined to mean a person who, on being
D 'allocated' to the Service, has been permitted to abstain from probationary
training in order to appear at the next examination. It is, therefore, clear
that allocation of the Inciian Police Service to him has already been made
and but for the exemption granted to him, he would be required to join
the probationary training. In other words, for all practical purposes, he is
E treated as probationer of the Indian Police Service and it is for this reason
that he seeks and is granted the exemption permitting him to abstain
from probationary training for the time being. This incident of granting
exemption is itself indicative of the fact that for all practical purposes, he
is treated as a member of the Indian Police Service and is granted exemp-
F tion from commencing his probationary training. There is thus no reason
why for the purpose of cadre allocation, he cannot be treated as a
probationer and, therefore, a member of the Indian Police Service. Rule
10 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 dealing with
seniority of probationers also gives the same indication. Rule 10 requires
G one common list, even though in two parts, of all probationers who are
appointed to the Service on the results of the same competitive examination
of which the first part consists of probationers ether than exempted
probationers and the second part consists of exempted probationers who
were selected at the same competitive examination; and those in the first
H part are placed en-bloc above the exempted probationers included in the
U.0.1. v. RAHULRASG01RA[VERMA,J.] 519
second part. ·Thus, the exempted probationers are also treated as A
probationers selected at the same competitive examination and are in-
cluded in the common list of probationers of the same batch with the only
difference of a possible loss of seniority in the same batch to a probationer
lower in order of merit in the competitive examination in case the
probationer who ranked lower in the examination result is in the first part B
of the list. This being the only difference as a consequence of the late
joining of traming of an exempted probationer, it is clear that the Indian
Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 read as a whole treat the exempted
probationer also as a probationer of the same batch for all practical
purposes and, therefore, as a member of the Indian Police Service of the C
same batch as any other probationer of that batch who is not an exempted
probationer. The meaning of 'cadre officer' in Rule 5(1) of the Indian
Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 has, therefore, to be understood to
mean a member of the Indian Police Service in this manner, or in other
words a probationer so understood.
D
12. This view is also in accord with the practical consequence thereof.
If the submission of Shri P.P. Rao were to be accepted, there is no
provision in the relevant rules to work out the same. The officers selected
at the same competitive examination and, therefore, being probationers of
the same batch, are placed in one combined list for the purpose of seniority E
prepared in accordance with Rule 10 of the Indian Police Service (Proba-
tion) Rules, 1954, while those of the next year's competitive examination
belong to the subsequent batch and are in a separate seniority list prepared
under Rule 10. Even though the exempted probationers commence their
training with probationers of the next batch, the rules do not provide for F
inter se ranking of the exempted probationers of the previous batch along
with the probationers of the next batch or for cadre allocation of exempted
probationers against vacancies for the next batch meant for the next year'
probationers. If the submission of Shri P.P. Rao be correct, there has to
be some more prescribed in the rules for that purpose also. The absence G
of any such provision in the rules is a clear indication that the exempted
probationers are to be treated as probationers of the same batch along with
all those selected at the same competitive examination and this has to bf
for all purposes including their cadre allocation which has reference to the
available vacancies meant for officers selected at the same competitive H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 1 S.C.R.
A examination and, therefore, to the corresponding cadre allocation for the
entire batch of the same year, their being no method for intermixing of any
probationer including the exempted probationer of the different batches
for the purpose of cadre allocation. For a harmonious construction of all
the relevant provisions, the. meaning of 'cadre officer' in Rule 5(1) of the
B Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 must be so understood and
construed and this also promotes the object and purpose of cadre alloca-
tion to be made thereunder. The explanation added in sub-rule (1) of Rule
5 retrospectively from 1.1.1988 is obviously to clarify this position which is
implicit in the provisions even without the aid of this explanation.
c 13. On the above view, the claim made by Rahul Rasgotra, resp0n-
dent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 5414 of 1993 is untenable. The claim of
Desh Raj Singh, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 1993 is even
more tenuous in view of the fact that he was not even an 'exempted
probationer' since he withdrew his request for permission to appear at the
D next examination. The view taken by the Tribunal that the retrospective
amendment of Rule 5(1) by insertion of the Explanation therein w.e.f.
1.1.1988 is inapplicable to the application of Desh Raj Singh, which was
pending before the Tribunal at the time the amendment was made, is
untenable in view of the construction we have made of the provisions and·
E our view that the Explanation is merely clarificatory of the existing position.
14. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to place on
record our deep distress at the manner in which the cases on behali of the
Government are generally conducted even in this court and also when the
Government comes to this Court to overcome the consequence of an
F adverse order made 'against it. We do so with a felling almost of despair
since our constant lament orally and, at times, even in writing has so far
evinced no appropriate response for improvement. On a similar occasion,
this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. A. Radhakrishnan and Ors., [1991)
3 S.C.R. 895, observed thus:
G
"This matter brings to the fore once again the ineptitude with which
litigation is conducted quite often on behalf of the Government of
India and State Government even when important issues having
lasting and wide repurcussions are involved. The point in this case
H relates to the validity of a policy of the railway administration and
U.0.1. v. RAHULRASGOTRA[VERMA,J.] 521
is likely to affect the staff pattem in several units. Inspite of this A
fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the required
materials were not produced in the High Court and to overcome
the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce
the entire relevant record were not availed. The learned Additional
Solicitor General informed us after several adjournments .that B
better performance is not possible. We, therefore, concluded the
hearing and proceed to decide on the available materials. It is
indeed fortunate for the appellants that our conclusion is in their
favour ........ "
There is no improvement in the situation. An argument was advanced
c
on behalf of the respondents that the cadre allocation to respondent No.
1 was made prior to allotment of the Service to him on account of which
it was invalid. Material documents to negative the same must be in posses-
sion of the Government of India but they were not produced before the
Tribunal or even before us, in spite of opportunity given by us. The learned D
Additional Solicitor General expressed his utter helplessness in the matter
and informed us that his efforts to obtain and produce those documents
from the concerned authorities had failed. This shows the apathy of the
persons responsible for the conduct of the case on b~half of the Govern-
ment of India. We are not sure whether such lapses of the persons E
responsible for conduct of the case on behalf of the Government are
deliberate or inadvertent but they are certainly culpable which need to be
investigated by the concerned authorities to identify the delinquents and
punish them in public interest. It is time that the derelicts are also held
accountable aud liable for the loss of public money due to their lapses. The F
stage is now reached for taking drastic steps to arrest further decadence
and to implement the avowed promises held out for improvement of the
working of the system. Governments being the largest litigants, radical
improvement is needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing
frivolous litigation and ensuring proper conduct of the necessary litigation.
Unless the desirable steps in this behalf are taken in the right earnest, any G
number of seminars and conferences to devise means for reducing the
backlog in Courts is an exercise in futility and the resolutions made therein,
are empty slogans. We reiterate this with the fond hope that the concerned
authorities would wake up to the true malaise and work the programme of
improving its machinery, a reality. H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R.
A 15. Consequently, both these appeals are allowed. The impugned
orders made by the Tribunal in both cases are set aside resulting in +-4
dismissal of the applications filed before the Tribunal by Rahul Rasgotra
and Desh Raj Singh. No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
-1~
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "cadre allocation"Sign in to search