.

Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:- Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 1988.

The appellants are direct recruits to Indian Police Service (I.P.S.), while the respondents 5 to 11 are promotees. In this appeal directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the dispute pertains to the proper year of allotment to be assigned to respondents 5 to 11. The Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal was filed by the said respondents. The appellants as well as respondents 12 to 14 in this appeal were impleaded as respondents 5 to 11. Respondents 12 to 14 in this appeal are also direct recruits. Since they did not join the appellants in filing this appeal, they have been impleaded as respondents. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellants as direct recruits and to respondents 5 to 11 as promotees.

2. The promotees were substantive members of the Andhra Pradesh State Police Service. They were included in the select list prepared under and in accordance with the I.P.S. Promotion Regulations on 9th January, 1978. Even before the said date, all of them (except Sri K. Narsimha) were posted in cadre posts. They continued to officiate in such cadre posts even after January 9, 1978, till they were appointed to the I.P.S. Respondent No. 5 was appointed to I.P.S. on December 19, 1978, Respondent No. 6 on September 20, 1979 and the remaining on November 13, 1979. If their dates of appointment to I.P.S. is taken as the basis, Respondent No. 5 would be entitled to be assigned 1974 as his year of allotment while the other respondents would get 1975 -and this is what the Government of India did. The promotee-respondents case, however, is that inasmuch as they have officiated continuously in a cadre post, they were entitled to count their service at least from January 9, 1978 (the date of inclusion in the selection list) for the purpose of determining their year of allotment and that if so counted, they will get the year 1973 as their year of allotment. The Central Administrative Tribunal has upheld this claim of the Respondents 5 to 11.

3. The four appellants and respondents 12 to 14 (direct recruits) have been assigned 1974 as their year of allotment. This is not in question. Since they were likely to be affected by the grant of relief claimed by the promotees, they were impleaded as respondents in the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. These direct recruits contested the promotees claim before the Tribunal, so did the Government of India.

4. The main question in this appeal is whether the continuous officiating service rendered by the promotees in the cadre posts on and from January 9, 1978 is liable to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining their year of allotment? As indicated hereinabove, if this service is counted they will be entitled to be assigned 1973 as their year of allotment. Otherwise not.

5. Mr. R. F. Nariman, learned counsel for the appellants (direct recruits) urged the following contentions:

(1) the posting of the promotees in cadre posts even before their inclusion in the select list and before their appointment to I.P.S. is contrary to rules and, therefore, of no effect.

(2) the continuation of the said respondents in cadre posts beyond three months of their posting - at any rate, after the expiry of three months from January 9, 1978 is in clear violation of Rule 9 of the I.P.S. (Cadre) Rules. Morever, they could not be continued in the cadre post beyond six months unless the Central Government accorded prior concurrence thereto. Admittedly, no such prior concurrence was obtained. As a matter of fact, the Government of india disapproved the said posting. If so, there can be no question of counting such service for any purpose whatsoever.

(3) the posting of the promotees in the cadre posts was also illegal inasmuch as on that date cadre officers were available. Ignoring the cadre officers, the said promotees were posted to cadre points