Back
1998(5) Supreme 195
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Ramchandra Dayaram Gawande -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9060-61 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26635-36 of 1995)
Decided on 10-5-1996
Held : 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 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 acquire right to assignment of the year of allotment. Eligibility for consideration have been prescribed in IPS (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules. Candidate that fulfills the qualifications requires to be considered for appointment by promotion as per Rule 9 thereof preparation of the select list in accordance with the Appointment by Promotion Regulations is a pre-condition which requires to be prepared every year. It was held to be a mandatory duty. (Para 6)
Further held : As seen under the Appointment by promotion Regulations, the list should be prepared in the order of merit as envisaged therein. The UPSC, while considering the order of merit, is empowered to revise the order and recommend to the Government of India for appointment, after obtaining the comments on the proposed changes from the State 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 the UPSC. Under 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the Central Government 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 substantive right to appointment until approval of the list by the UPSC and appointment by the Central Government. The inclusion of a person’s name in the select list in any order, therefore, does not give 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 lists creates only inchoit until he gets his appointment in accordance with the rules. (Para 7)
(ii) Service Law-IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954-Promotion - Appellant appointed to a substantive post in State Police Service-Promoted as Superintendent of Police in senior time scale-He was brought on select list for year 1977-He was given seniority in All India Police Service from promotee quota w.e.f. April 30, 1978-Appellant claimed year of allotment, i.e. 1972 under the Rules-Failure to convene meeting explained-Whether year of allotment of appellant of 1973 is vitiated by any error of law warranting interference?-(No).
Held 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 UPSC 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 law it forms the final list. Appointment of the promotee officer to the Indian Police Service by the Central Government are mandatory requirements 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 to consider the claims for selection of the candidates. Preparation of the list in the order of merit approved by UPSC and appointment to the post in accordance with the rules was to follow thereafter. (Para 9)
Further held : It is explained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that direct recruits of the year 1976 were given the year of allotment of 1977 and that, therefore, the appellant cannot get any day earlier than the direct recruits of the 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. (Para 10)
Order
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. The appellant appointed to a substantive post in State Police Service 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 IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 (for short, the ‘Rules;), the appellant claimed the year of allotment, i.e., 1972 under IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, which was rejected by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated August 18, 1995 in OA No. 557/90.
3. 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 and preparation of the annual seniority list.
4. 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 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 IPS (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 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 be given the seniority from April 30, 1978 when the vacancy from promotee quota has arisen.
5. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1, it is mandatory on the part of the State to prepare every year the select list of Deputy Superintendent of Police to fill up vacancies which have arisen in the year to the quota and to promote them to the IPS cadre under Rule 9 of the IPC (Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1954 which was held to be mandatory. It is incumbent upon the State Government to conduct a meeting and select the officers and allot the year of allotment to fulfill the legitimate expectation of the right to consider for promotion. Though explanation 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 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.
6. The effect of the inter-play of IPS (Recruitment Rules), 1954, IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and IPS (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 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 acquire right to assignment of the year of allotment. Eligibility for consideration have been prescribed in IPS (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules. Candidate that fulfills the qualifications requires to b
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
