AMRIK SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 11-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
485 
AMRIK SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
April 11, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND 0. ClIINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Seniority, clailn for-Indian Police Service Officers-Counting officiating 
~<;ervice i11 a Cadre pcJt of a junior officer in the Select List while lzis senior 
in the list was officiating in another ex-cadre post for the purposes of fixing 
year of allotment-Whether illegal-Whether continuation of a non-cadre officer 
A 
B 
in a cadre post beyond 3 months by the State Government without a report to the 
Central Govern1nent and the Central Governnzent non reporting after six months 
C 
to U.P.S.C. is illegal-Indian Police Service Rules RPgulation of Seniority Rules 
1954 r/w Regulation 7-9 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) 
Regulations 1955 Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules 1954-All India Services 
(Conditions of Sen•icr.. Residuary matters) Rules, 1960. 
One Sri Ahluwalia, 4th respondent herein became a Deputy Superintendent 
of Police in Hirnachal Pradesh (which was then a Union Territory) .bY the 
D 
end of 1956. 
In 1962, the Central Government constituted a common police 
service for the Union Territory of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh called the 
Delhi and l-Iin1acha1. Pradesh Police Service, and later, in 1964, respondent 
No. 4 was absorbed into that service on a regular basis. 
The usucl avenue 
of promotion for a Deputy Superintendent of Police is the post of· Superin-
tendent of Police, but Superintendents of Police are borne on the cadre of the 
Indian Police Service and the exercise which results in the inclusion in the 
E 
Indian Police Sen'icc is governed by the Indian Police Service (Appointment 
by Promotion) Regulations. 1955 framed under section 3(4) of the All India 
Sefvices Act, 1951. The first step is to prepare a select list from 
among 
eligible officers of the State concerned, in the present case the lJnion Terri-
tories of Delhi and Himac-hal Pradesh. 
Sometimes, it happens that although 
the post of a Superin~endent of Police is a cadre po.st, if no hands are readily 
available for being posted from the I.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police 
from the Select List is promoted provisionally subject to certain formalities. 
'The 4th respondent (Ahluwalia) was brought into the Select 'list in 1965 
and later appointed SUperintendent of Police in October 1965 and he worked. 
as Superintendent of Police in one place or the other, until December 25, 1967, 
when he \Vent on Earned Leave from 26-12-67 to 25-3-68 and, even thereafter 
i.e. from 26-3-68 onwards, he con~inued as Superintendent of Police right down 
to January 1971, when on January 30, 1971, he was appointed to the I.P.S. 
and confirmed as such. The year of a1lotn1ent was fixed as 1965. For ascer-
tainin~ the period of allotment under rule 3 (3) (b) of 
the 
Regulation 
of 
Seniority Rules. i954, the period of his officiating service in the cadre post 
from 1-8-68 to 12-10-69 was not' taken into account under Regulations 7 to 
9 of the Tnd:an Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 
1955, 
in view of the fact that one Mr. Sahney who was senior to him in the Select 
I.ist happened to be posted in an ex-cadre post. 
The 4th respondent who had 
a ca1;e that the law 2nd justice «?f his case entitled him to 1961 as year of 
;allotment, challenged the order of the Central Government allotting him the 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 S.C.R. 
year 1965. 
The High Court considered the matter with reference to the 
relevant rules and allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the Union of 
India to refix his seniority after assigning him the year of allotment as 1961. 
The Central Government reconsidered the matter even earlier, and, by its order 
dated 27-7-1979, refued the seniority of the 4th respondent by assigning 1961 
as his year of allotment. Aggrieved by this development the appellants have 
come up in appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HEW : I. The Officer Sri Ahluwalia was rightly assigned 1961 as the 
year oil allotment. 
There was continuous officiation by him in a cadre post 
right down to 1971. There was no fault on his part. There was no illegality. 
There was no outwitting at the instance of Ahlu\valia, of the claims of any 
C 
other candidate. 
[494H, 495A] 
2. The real line of distinction between a State and the Union of India might 
well be blurred a little when it is a Union Territory. Moreover, there is the 
circumstance

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.