S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - Appellants
Versus
DINKAR SINHA - Respondent.
And
R.K. CHATVRVEDI - Appellant
Versus
DINKAR SINHA AND OTHERS – Respondents
And
U.P. PROVINCIAL POLICE SERVICE ASSN - Appellant
Versus
DINKAR SINHA AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 1262 of 2004 with Nos. 1265 and 1267 of 2004
Decided on : May 9, 2007
seniority - commissioned service in the Army - 1942 Rules, 1968 Rules, 1973 Rules, 1980 Rules - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of the 1942 Rules, 1968 Rules, 1973 Rules, and 1980 Rules in the context of seniority based on commissioned service in the Army. It highlights the provisions of these rules, their applicability, and the limitations of their benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the seniority of a respondent based on his commissioned service in the Army and his subsequent recruitment in the U.P. Police Service. The respondent joined the Indian Army during the Emergency and later joined the U.P. Police Service against reserved vacancies for ex-army personnel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 1980 Rules, which did not provide for reservation of vacancies for demobilized officers, had a limited retrospective effect and did not replace or continue the 1973 Rules. The respondent's case did not fall within the purview of the reserved category under the 1973 Rules or the 1980 Rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the 1942 Rules, 1968 Rules, 1973 Rules, and 1980 Rules in determining the seniority of the respondent based on his commissioned service in the Army and subsequent recruitment in the U.P. Police Service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 1980 Rules had a limited retrospective effect and did not replace or continue the 1973 Rules. It emphasized that the respondent's case did not fall within the purview of the reserved category under the 1973 Rules or the 1980 Rules.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J.- Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent herein was entitled to seniority on the basis of his commissioned service in the Army is the question involved in these appeals which arises out of the judgment and order dated 8-2-2002 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1754 (SB) of 2000.
2. The Governor of the then United Provinces (now the State of Uttar Pradesh) in exercise of his power under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 framed the U.P. Police Service Rules, 1942 (for short "the 1942 Rules"). The terms and conditions of the services of the employees including recruitment thereto are governed thereby. Rule 21 of the 1942 Rules reads as under:
"21. Seniority.-Seniority in the service shall be determined according to the date of the order of appointment in a substantive capacity and if two or more candidates are appointed on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined according to the order in which their names appear in the order of appointment:
Provided that
(1) the inter se seniority of direct recruits selected in one batch shall be determined according to their merit at the selection but a candidate may lose his seniority if he fails to join without sufficient reasons when appointment is offered to him and the decision of the Governor as to the sufficiency of reasons shall be final;
(2) the inter se seniority of the promotees, selected at one selection, relating to one particular year of recruitment shall be determined according to their seniority in the post from which they are promoted;
* * *
(3) vacancies are required to be filled on every occasion both by direct recruitment and promotion and the inter se seniority of persons appointed by promotion and direct recruitment against the vacancies of a particular year, shall be determined by arranging their names alternately, the first name being of the person appointed by promotion, and placing the names of the remaining persons below en bloc.
Explanation.-A direct recruit will not be entitled to seniority of the year earlier to the year of his recruitment solely on the ground that there had been no direct recruitment in that year."
3. The said Rule upon coming into force of the Constitution of India, continued to remain in force in terms of Article 372 of the Constitution of India. The President of India proclaimed Emergency on 1-11-1962 under Article 352 of the Constitution of India consequent upon the Chinese aggression. On account of grave threat to the security of India, a large-scale recruitment of officers was to be made therefor. To answer the call of the nation, a large number of young persons gave up their softer career options and got themselves recruited to the armed forces of the Union of India to serve the motherland. The Emergency so proclaimed was revoked on 10-1-1968.
4. The Governor of U.P. on or about 29-3-1968 framed rules known as e the U.P. Non-Technical (Class II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for the Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1968 (for short "the 1968 Rules") for a period of five years whereby and whereunder inter alia reservation to the extent of 20% of the vacant posts were conceived for Demobilised Officers who had been commissioned in the armed forces during the Emergency. For the said purpose, relaxations were also made in certain areas. Rule 4 of the 1968 Rules provided grant of seniority to such Demobilised Officers by raising a legal fiction, subject however to the condition, that they would be deemed to have entered service at their second opportunity of competing for recruitment.
5. On or about 3-12-1971, in the wake of Indo-Pak war with regard to Bangladesh imbroglio, another external Emergency was proclaimed. A large-scale recruitment was also made to the Short Service and Emergency Commission wherein again many young persons opted to join the armed forces of the Union of India.
6. The Governor of U .P. on
Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors.
REFERRED TO : Narendra Nath Pande and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors.
Rana Randhir Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Dilbag Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Indu Shekhar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Ramji Purshottam (Dead) by LRs. And Ors. v. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (Dead) By LRs. And Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.