2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4744

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
G. Sreekanth – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./64/2021

Notional service from delayed appointment due to State error counts for IPS promotion eligibility via Rule 3 relaxation of 8-year requirement; mechanical rejection quashed, mandating Review Committee for earlier Year of Allotment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Regulation 5(2) - All India Services (Conditions of Service - Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 - Rule 3 - Notional appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 01.06.2001 due to delayed actual appointment from 2012 arising out of State Government's mistake in restricting notified vacancies - Notional seniority and promotions granted by State Government - Rejection of representation for relaxation to count notional service for eligibility to earlier Year of Allotment in IPS quashed as non-speaking order without application of mind - Central Government directed to reconsider under Rule 3 for relaxation of 8 years continuous service requirement, constitute Review Selection Committee for appropriate Year of Allotment on par with batchmates, considering extraordinary circumstances not attributable to officer. (Paras 7, 17, 18)

(B) Service Law - Notional service - Continuity recognized where delay in appointment due to administrative lapses rectified by judicial orders, leading to notional dates and promotions - Prior service in equivalent Group-I post supports continuity - Scheduled Caste officer's compounded prejudice from delay warrants equitable relief. (Paras 14, 17(a))

Facts of the case:
Applicant, appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2012 after judicial intervention upheld by Supreme Court for wrongful restriction of 19 notified vacancies to 10, granted notional appointment w.e.f. 01.06.2001, notional promotions to Additional SP and SP (Non-Cadre), and included in state seniority. Sought IPS promotion counting notional service for 8-year eligibility under 1955 Regulations for earlier select lists (2015-2017). Representation rejected by Central Government on 16.11.2020 holding Rule 3 inapplicable to State Police officers. Subsequently inducted to IPS in select list 2021 with seniority from 2018.

Findings of Court:
Notional appointment establishes service continuity; prior rejection unsustainable; fresh reconsideration mandated with relaxation under Rule 3, Review Selection Committee for earlier Year of Allotment and consequential benefits.

Issues: (1) Whether notional appointment entitles consideration for earlier IPS Select List years? (2) Whether rejection of representation legally sustainable?

Ratio Decidendi: Notional service counts for eligibility where delay due to State's mistake not attributable to officer; Rule 3 empowers relaxation in extraordinary hardship; mechanical rejection without reasoning invalid; judicially recognized continuity mandates equitable Year of Allotment.

Result: Original Application allowed; impugned order quashed; directions issued for reconsideration within 4 weeks.

Table of Content
1. applicant's prayer for ips promotion with notional seniority. (Para 1 , 2)
2. state's opposition on actual service requirement. (Para 3)
3. applicant's contentions on delay due to state fault. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. precedents supporting notional service for promotions. (Para 16)
5. notional appointment warrants earlier ips allotment. (Para 17)
6. quash rejection, direct reconsideration with relaxation. (Para 18)

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action

of the 4th respondent in rejecting the representation dated 01- 8-2020 of the applicant to confer and appoint him to the cadre of Indian Police Service by promotion as being eligible for the said promotion from the feeder category i.e. Dy. S.P. w.e.f. 01.06.2001as arbitrary, capricious, illegal and unconstitutional and as a consequence thereof direct the respondents to consider the request of the applicant by invoking Rule 3 of AIS (Conditions of Service - Residuary matters) Rules, 1960 to relax rule 5(2) of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, duly constituting a Review Selection Committee to reconsider the selection of the applicant for conferring IPS in an appropriate Year of Allotment (YoA) duly taking into account the earlier substantive service rendered by him in the cadre of District Employment Officer/Dy. Chief (Employment) as equivalent to the post of Dy.S.P. clubbed with the factum of his assigning notional date of appointment in the category of Dy.S.P., Addl.S.P., and S.P.(NC) as ordered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.100 Home(Pol.E) Dt.1-9- 2016, G.O.Ms.No.197 Home (Ser.l) Dept., dt.12-12-2018 and G.O.Ms.No.200 Home (Ser.l) Dept., dated 14-12-2018 in-as- much as he cannot be held responsible for restricting the selection of appointment to10 Dy.S.Ps. as against 19 vacancies notified by APPSC and that too, he was selected along with others and aligning the applicant's seniority with his rightful position vis-à-vis his batch-mates in the cadre of IPS to mitigate the hardship caused to him and consequently direct the respondents to grant seniority and promotions etc., with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and circumstances

of the case”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are as under:

(i) The applicant's appointment as District Employment Officer on 13-11-

2000 was a direct consequence of the arbitrary restriction imposed by the Government on the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). Under Notification No.5/1998, the APPSC notified 19 vacancies of Deputy Superintendents of Police among various categories of posts for appointment by direct recruitment to Group-I Services. However, the Government, by imposing the arbitrary restriction, curtailed the appointments to only 10 posts as against the

19 notified vacancies of Deputy Superintendents of Police.

(ii) The applicants initiated proceedings before the A.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A. The Tribunal granted relief to them through order dated 15.09.2004. The Writ Petition filed by the State Government against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal was rejected. The matter landed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the form of Civil Appeal No.4129/2006, which was dismissed through order dated 14.09.2006, upholding the direction issued by the State Administrative Tribunal, for appointment of the applicants. Ultimately, the orders were implemented in the year 2011, and all the applicants were appointed as Dy.SPs. They were also assigned notional seniority, on the basis of their ranking in the merit list, by publishing the final seniority list dated 01.09.2016.

(iii) The applicant submits that, in view of the above, he becomes eligible for promotion to the Indian Police Service for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document