Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a promotee officer of the Indian Police Service who claimed an earlier year of allotment under the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The appellant, a member of the State Police Service, was promoted as Superintendent of Police in senior time scale on May 11, 1976. He was brought on the select list for the year 1977 and given seniority in the All India Police Service from the promotee quota with effect from April 30, 1978. Claiming that he had been continuously officiating in a cadre post since 1976, he sought year of allotment 1972, arguing that the State Government's failure to convene timely selection meetings and prepare annual select lists deprived him of promotion chances. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected his claim in OA No.557/90 on August 18, 1995. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the interplay of IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1954, and IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The Court relied on Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, which held that preparation of the annual select list is mandatory, but that no employee has a right to promotion, only a right to be considered. The Court reiterated that inclusion in the select list and appointment in accordance with rules are conditions precedent for assignment of year of allotment. Continuous officiation in a cadre post before inclusion in the select list does not confer seniority; Explanation 1 to the seniority rules provides that continuous officiation counts only from the date of inclusion in the select list or continuous officiation after inclusion, whichever is later. The Court found that the appellant was brought on the select list only on February 15, 1978, and was appointed against a promotee quota vacancy on April 30, 1978. The government's explanation for postponing the selection meeting due to a strike was acceptable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Tribunal's order, and held that the appellant was not entitled to the year of allotment 1972 or 1973; his seniority from April 30, 1978 was correct.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Right to Promotion vs Right to be Considered - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1954; Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 - No employee has a right to promotion but has a right to be considered for promotion according to Rules; chances of promotion are not conditions of service but every incumbent has a legitimate expectation for promotion; preparation of annual select list is mandatory but inclusion in select list does not confer vested right to appointment or seniority - Held that preparation of select list every year is mandatory to afford equal opportunity, but breach of that duty does not automatically entitle an officer to retrospective seniority (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Seniority and Year of Allotment - Conditions Precedent for Seniority - Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 Rule 3(3)(b); Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1954 - An officer gets seniority only upon inclusion in select list and appointment in accordance with rules; continuous officiation in a cadre post before such inclusion does not count for year of allotment; Explanation 1 provides that continuous officiation counts only from the date of inclusion in select list or continuous officiation after inclusion, whichever is later - Held that appellant's continuous officiation from 1976 did not entitle him to year of allotment 1972 or 1973 because he was brought on select list only in February 1978 and appointed against vacancy on April 30, 1978 (Paras Not mentioned). C) Service Law - Select List Preparation - Mandatory Duty and Dereliction - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1954 Regulations 3, 5(1), 6, 7 - State Government must constitute committee, prepare annual select list, forward to UPSC for approval; failure to hold meeting due to strike was explained; mandatory duty does not create absolute right to retrospective benefits - Held that the government's explanation for postponement due to strike was satisfactory and the appellant was not denied lawful consideration; his seniority from April 30, 1978 was correct (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
What is the consequence of failure to convene a meeting for selection of candidates and preparation of the annual select list, and whether continuous officiation in a cadre post before inclusion in the select list entitles a promotee officer to an earlier year of allotment under Rule 3(3)(b) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Tribunal's order, and held that the appellant was not entitled to the year of allotment 1972 or 1973; his seniority from April 30, 1978 was correct as he was brought on the select list only on February 15, 1978 and appointed against a promotee quota vacancy on April 30, 1978. Continuous officiation before inclusion in the select list does not confer any right to earlier year of allotment.
Law Points
- No employee has a right to promotion
- only a right to be considered
- preparation of annual select list is mandatory
- inclusion in select list and appointment in accordance with rules are conditions precedent for seniority
- continuous officiation before select list inclusion does not count for year of allotment
- year of allotment determined by date of inclusion in select list or continuous officiation after inclusion
- whichever is later
