1995 (10) TMI 227 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of inter se seniority between a direct recruit and a promotee in the Indian Police Service.
2. Year of allotment for a promotee officer after expunction of adverse entries and retrospective appointment.
3. Interpretation of Rule 3(3)(b) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
4. Validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment regarding seniority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Inter Se Seniority Between a Direct Recruit and a Promotee:
The perennial dispute of determining inter se seniority between a direct recruit and a promotee in the Indian Police Service is at the core of this case. The appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was promoted to the Indian Police Service after adverse entries in his record were expunged. The Tribunal initially ruled that the seniority should be determined based on the date of continuous officiation in a senior post, which placed the direct recruit, Shri Ashwini Kumar, senior to the appellant.

2. Year of Allotment for a Promotee Officer After Expunction of Adverse Entries and Retrospective Appointment:
The appellant was retrospectively appointed to the Indian Police Service with effect from 31.3.1976 after adverse entries in his Confidential Report were expunged. The Tribunal, however, determined his seniority based on his continuous officiation from 30.3.1978, ignoring the retrospective appointment. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal committed a gross error by not considering the retrospective appointment and ruled that the appellant's seniority should be determined from 31.3.1976.

3. Interpretation of Rule 3(3)(b) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954:
Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules states that the year of allotment of a promotee officer should be determined by the year of allotment of the junior-most officer recruited by direct recruitment who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the promotee. The Supreme Court clarified that this rule must be interpreted in the context of the promotee's substantive appointment date, especially when the promotee was retrospectively appointed after an error was rectified.

4. Validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Judgment Regarding Seniority:
The Tribunal's decision to place Shri Ashwini Kumar senior to the appellant was based on a literal application of Rule 3(3)(b), considering only the continuous officiation from 30.3.1978. The Supreme Court found this interpretation flawed, as it ignored the retrospective appointment effective from 31.3.1976. The Court held that the Central Government's determination of the appellant's year of allotment as 1970 and his seniority over Shri Ashwini Kumar was correct.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the Central Government's decision, determining the year of allotment of the appellant as 1970 and confirming his seniority over Shri Ashwini Kumar. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.