1967 (1) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated August 25, 1955.
2. Determination of the year of allotment under the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
3. Application of the date May 19, 1951, for fixing seniority.
4. Alleged arbitrariness and irrationality in the selection of the date May 19, 1951.
5. Unequal treatment among equals.
6. Continuous officiation as a temporary or local arrangement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order Dated August 25, 1955:
The appellant challenged the order dated August 25, 1955, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, as being contrary to law and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court quashed this impugned order, finding it arbitrary and contrary to the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.

2. Determination of the Year of Allotment under the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954:
The appellant's seniority had to be determined under the Seniority Rules. Rule 3 deals with the assignment of the year of allotment. The appellant, appointed to the Indian Police Service by promotion in 1955, fell under the second category of officers appointed after the commencement of the rules. The year of allotment had to be determined ad hoc by the Central Government after approving the officiation period before 1956 in consultation with the Commission.

3. Application of the Date May 19, 1951, for Fixing Seniority:
The Government of India decided that State Civil Service Officers and State Police Officers promoted to the Indian Police Service after May 19, 1951, would have their continuous officiation in senior posts counted only from that date. This decision excluded the appellant's officiation period from June 25, 1947, to May 19, 1951, for seniority purposes. The Supreme Court found this selection of May 19, 1951, arbitrary and irrational.

4. Alleged Arbitrariness and Irrationality in the Selection of the Date May 19, 1951:
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's contention that selecting May 19, 1951, as the crucial date for classifying people was arbitrary and irrational. The date was initially relevant to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Gradation List and had no adequate explanation for its application to the Indian Police Service (IPS).

5. Unequal Treatment among Equals:
The appellant argued that he was treated unequally among his equals. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to decide on this point as the appeal was accepted on the grounds of the arbitrary selection of May 19, 1951, and its contradiction to Rule 3.

6. Continuous Officiation as a Temporary or Local Arrangement:
The Government of India contended that the appellant's continuous officiation was a temporary or local arrangement. However, the Supreme Court found no force in this contention, noting that an eight-year stop-gap arrangement was implausible and that the appellant was appointed to the post when vacancies arose, negating the temporary arrangement claim.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the impugned order dated August 25, 1955, and directed the Central Government to fix the year of allotment and seniority of the appellant in accordance with the judgment and the law. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay the costs of the appellant.