Order

The appellant was directly recruited to the post of District Superin­tendent of Police in the competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1965. He joined service on 5.7.1965. At the relevant time he was officiating as Super­intendent of Police which is a post in the Indian Police Service. He was so officiating from 26.6.1975 to 5.5.1978. The substantive post held by him at the material time was of Additional Superintendent of Police which is in the State Police Service.

2. The dispute in the present case relates to the year in which the name of the appellant should have been included in the select list for appointment as Superintendent of Police. The name of the appellant was included, for the first time, in the select list prepared for the year 1978. According to the appellant, he should have been included in the select list which was prepared in the year 1977.

3. Under Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regula­tions, 1955 it is provided as follows:

“Regulation 5: Preparation of a list of suitable officers.

(i) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at interval not exceed­ing one year and prepare a list of such members of the State Police Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the service. The number of members of the State Police Service included in the list shall not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of twelve months, commencing from the date of preparation of the list in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules;

OR

10 per cent of the senior posts shown against items 1 and 2 of the cadre schedule of each State or Group of States,

whichever is greater.

4. Under Regulation, 5 the Select Com­mittee is required to meet at an interval not exceeding one year. In order to prepare the select list for the year 1977, the Select Committee met on 23rd November, 1976. Regulation 5 provides that the number of candidates to be included in the select list shall not exceed twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of 12 months com­mencing from the date of preparation of the list. In the present case, therefore, for preparing the select list for the year 1977, the Select Committee which met and prepared the list on 23.11.1976, was required to consider vacancies anticipated for the period November, 1976 to November, 1977. The number of candidates on the select list would be twice the anticipated vacancies. Regulation (5) also provides that the number on the select list should be atleast equal to 10% of the posts in the cadre allotted to the State in question. We are not concerned with this second part of Regulation 5 in the present case because of the number under first part of Regulation 5 in the present case ex­ceeding 10% of the posts. However, one may note that the total posts which were available to the State Police for the State of Tamil Nadu were 80. Therefore, atleast a minimum of 8 names were required on the select list.

5. In order to ascertain the number of anticipated vacancies for the period November, 1976 to November, 1977 both the sides have relied upon Annexure D to the Special Leave Petition which was also before the Central Administrative Tribunal. As per Annexure D, there were four vacancies which were existing at the time when the select list was prepared. These were carried forward from 1976 as no appointment was made to these four posts from the select list of 14.7.1976. In addition, there were five anticipated vacancies which would arise during the period February, 1977 to November, 1977. There is also a note that no vacancy was created during the year 1977 due to death, dismissal or resignation of any officer. Therefore, as per the details set out in Annexure D, there were four existing vacancies and five anticipated vacancies at the time when the Select Committee met on 23.11.1976. Therefore, as per Regulation 5, th