SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 1256

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Versus
HARISH CHANDER BHATIA AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 1993{From the Judgment and Order dated 31-3-1992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in New Delhi in O.A. No. 300 of 1989: (1992) 3 SLJ (CAT) 377 : ATR (1992) 2 CAT 742},
Decided on 8-12-1994
Advocates appeared:
N.N. Goswamy, Senior Advocate (Hemant Sharma, P. Parameswaran and Ms A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants;
G.D. Gupta, A.K. Mahajan, Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik, L.R. Singh, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Advocates:
A.Subhashini, ASHOK MAHAJAN, G.D.GUPTA, HEMANT SHARMA, L.R.SINGH, N.N.GOSWAMY, P.PARMESHVARAN, VIKASH SINGH, YUNUS MALIK

Headnote:

DANI Police Service Rules, 1971 - Rules 4, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 29 - Dispute of Service Law-Inter se Seniority - Selection - Post of Assistant Commissioner of Police - Dispute of Service Law-inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits-has surfaced again in this appeal – While making appointments to the Service, proportion as specified in Rule 5 has to be borne in mind-which, under normal circumstances is 1:1 qua promotees and direct recruits, which, however, for reasons to be recorded, may be varied in the exigency of public service. The respondents herein, who are 4 in number were appointed after they had gone through the procedure of selection mentioned in Rule 24. They admittedly did not come to be appointed as per Rule 16. They came to occupy promotional post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, by virtue of what has been provided in Rule 25. We would be called upon to determine whether respondents were appointed under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (3) of this rule. After having done so, we would be required to see as to how their seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits has to be determined – Held, We have not appreciated stand taken by the appellants. This is for the reason that employers like the appellants, who are required to be model employers, should not take a stand which is unfair - They have to treat both the wings of the Service fairly, as both are equally important insofar as they are concerned. The need for making this observation has been felt because what we find is that despite an incumbent like Respondent 1 having served for more than a decade following his appointment, the stand taken is that he should be taken to have become a member of the Service from 1984 and not from 1972, being oblivious of the fact that for more than 12 years he had discharged functions of the higher post to satisfaction of all concerned. Denial of such long period of service for the purpose of seniority is an unjustified and arbitrary act which a model employer has to eschew - Appeal is disposed of

JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.- The perennial dispute of Service Law-inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits-has surfaced again in this appeal. This time the parties in dispute are officers belonging to DANI (Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands) Police Service (the Service). To resolve the lis we shall have to first determine as to when the respondents can be said to have become members of the Service and then we have to find out as to how they are to be placed in the seniority list to be prepared as required by Rule 29 of the DANI Police Service Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules).

2. While making appointments to the Service, proportion as specified in Rule 5 has to be borne in mind-which, under normal circumstances is 1:1 qua promotees and direct recruits, which, however, for reasons to be recorded, may be varied in the exigency of public service. The respondents herein, who are 4 in number were appointed after they had gone through the procedure of selection mentioned in Rule 24. They admittedly did not come to be appointed as per Rule 16. They came to occupy the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, by virtue of what has been provided in Rule 25. We would be called upon to determine whether the respondents were appointed under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (3) of this rule. After having done so, we would be required to see as to how their seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits has to be determined.

3. Rules 4, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 29 of the Rules are relevant to determine the controversy at hand and they read as below:

"4. Strength of the Service.- (1) The authorised permanent strength of the Service and the posts included therein shall be as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The number of selection grade posts in the Service shall be 13 per cent of the authorised permanent strength of the Service.

(3) The Central Government or the Administrator, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government, may, by order, create duty posts for such period as may be specified therein.

       * * *

14. Conditions of Eligibility and Procedure for Selection.- (1) The Committee shall consider from time to time the cases of officers eligible under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, who have served in the respective cadre or posts, as the case may be, for not less than two years and prepare a list of officers recommended for appointment after taking into account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those likely to occur during a year. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects for appointment to the Service with due regard to seniority.

(2) The seniority of the officers eligible for consideration by the Committee under sub-rule (1) shall be determined by the Central Government with due regard to the dates of their appointments on a regular basis to the respective cadre or posts, the pay scales of the posts etc.:

Provided that the persons belonging to the same parent service or Department shall be ranked inter se in order of their relative seniority in the parent Service or Department, as the case may be;

(3) The names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in order of merit.

(4) The list so prepared shall be forwarded by the Committee to the Central Government.

15. Consultation with the Commission.- (1) The list prepared under Rule 14 together with the relevant records shall be forwarded by the Central Government to the Commission, where consultation with the Commission is necessary or where the Chairman of the Committee desires that a reference be made to the Commission along with the relevant records.

(2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any change in the list received from the Central Government the Commission shall inform the Central Government of the changes proposed by it.

*(3) The list shall finally be approved by the Central Government after taking into account the changes, if any, p
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top