Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1967 Supreme(SC) 5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
D. R. Nim, Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
C. S. Prasad, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1965
D/- 5-1-1967. 1302
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate, Mr. B.Dutta, Advocate, and M/s. O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Respondent: M/s. Basudev Prasad, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, for Intervener.

Advocates:
B.DUTTA, B.R.L.Iyengar, BASUDEV PRASAD, J.B.DADACHAN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, N.S.BINDRA

The Central Government cannot pick out a date from a hat and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso to Rule 3(3) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.

Headnote:
ALL INDIA SERVICES ACT - INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (REGULATION OF SENIORITY) RULES, 1954 - RULE 3 - FIXATION OF YEAR OF ALLOTMENT - SELECTION OF MAY 19, 1951, AS A CRUCIAL DATE FOR CLASSIFYING PEOPLE IS ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO RULE 3.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a State Police Service Officer, was appointed to the Indian Police Service in 1955. The Government of India issued an order in 1955, which excluded the period of his officiation as Superintendent of Police from June 25, 1947 to May 19, 1951, for the purpose of fixation of seniority. The appellant challenged the order, contending that it was contrary to law and Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the selection of May 19, 1951, as a crucial date for classifying people was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The Court further held that the Government of India could not pick out a date from a hat and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso to Rule 3(3).
Issues: 1. Whether the selection of May 19, 1951, as a crucial date for classifying people was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954? 2. Whether the Government of India could pick out a date from a hat and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso to Rule 3(3)?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the selection of May 19, 1951, as a crucial date for classifying people was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The Court further held that the Government of India could not pick out a date from a hat and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso to Rule 3(3). The Court relied on the following principles: 1. The Central Government must consider the question of approval of the officiation period and come to and an ad hoc decision after considering all the relevant circumstances in consultation with the State Government concerned and fix the year of allotment. 2. The Central Government cannot pick out a date from a hat - and that is what it seems to have done in this case - and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, 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.

Judgement

SIKRI, J. : This appeal by Special leave is directed against the, judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi, dismissing in limine the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant D. R. Nim. The appellant had impugned in this petition an order, dated August 25, 1955, passed by the Government of India, (Ministry of Home Affairs) - hereinafter referred to as the impugned order as being contrary to law and Art. 14 of the Constitution.

2. The relevant facts for the determination of the validity of the impugned order are as follows: The appellant was appointed to the U. P. Police Service as a result of a competitive examination held in 1938. In course of time he was appointed officiating Superintendent of Police with effect from June 25, 1947. He continued to officiate till he was appointed to the Indian Police Service against the promotion quota of the Indian Police Service Cadre of Uttar Pradesh with effect from October 22, 1955. By the time he was appointed to the Indian Police Service various Rules and Regulations governing the Indian Police Service had been issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the All India Services Act (LXI of 1951). We are concerned particularly with the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Seniority Rules. The seniority of the appellant has to be determined under these Seniority Rules. The first thing to be done under the Seniority Rules is to determine the year of allotment of the appellant. The appellant claims that a wrong year of allotment has been given to him by the application of the impugned order, which according to him, is a void order. Rule 3. which deals with the assignment d the year of allotment reads as follows :-

"3. Assignment of Year of Allotment.- (1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained in this rule.

(2) The year of allotment of an officer in service at the commencement 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 orders and instructions in force immediately before the commencement of these rules :

Provided that where the year of allotment of an officer appointed in accordance with R. 9 of the Recruitment Rules has not been determined prior to the commencement of these Rules, his year of allotment shall be determined in accordance with the provision in Cl. (b) of sub-r. (3) of this rub and for this purpose, such officer shall be deemed to have officiated in a senior post only if and for the period for which he was approved for such officiation by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission.

(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service after the commencement of these rules, shall be-

(a) where the officer is appointed to the Service on the results of a competitive examination, the year following the year in which such examination was held;

(b) where the officer is appointed to the Service by promotion in accordance with R. 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the year of allotment of the junior-most among the officers recruited to the Service in accordance with rule 7 of those Rules who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the former :

Provided that, the year of appointment of an officer appointed to the Service in accordance with R. 9 of the Recruitment Rules who started officiating continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date on which any of the officers recruited to the Service, in accordance with R. 7 of those Rules, so started officiating shall be determined ad hoc by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned;

Provided further that an officer appointed to the Service after the commencement of these Rules in accordance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document