ANIL KUMAR CHOWDHURY versus STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 07-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

:8'.18 
ANIL KUMAR CHOWDHURY 
V, 
STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS 
March 7, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
l.A.S. (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 
1955-Rule 
3(3) (b)--· 
Wiletiler holding posrs equivalent to cadre posr but not declared to be so sufficiq111 
compliance with rule 3(3)(b)-Whe1her gap of one week breaks the continuity 
ill se.1·vice. 
'The pctitione!' joined Assam Civil Se!'Vlcc Class J i11 1949 nnd wa~ confirmed 
as 11uch in 19'7. lll 1961 he was included in the Select List prepared unde:r 
the provisions of the J.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regu,lations, !95S. 
He was admittedly functioning in senior posts equivulcnt to cadre posts reserved 
ior I.A.S. personnel right from the year 1960 till he was inducted in I.A.S. 
cadre except for a week's gap in ! 966. 
The petitioner claims to be placed i11 
the I.A.S. Gradation List above Serial No. 34 and not at ~rial No. 65 011 
the ground that the s~rvkes rendered by him between 1960-67 should be taken 
into consideration for determining his real length of service. 
Rule 3(3)(b) of 
the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 
reads 
.as under: 
"Rule 3 (3 )--The year of allotment of an Officer appointed to the service 
after the commencement of these rules shall be : 
(b) Where the Office'r is appointed to the service by p:·omotion in 
accordance with sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, the yea.r 
of allotment of the junior-most among the officers recruited to the service 
in accordance with rule 7 of these rules, who officiated contimw11sly in a 
senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such 
officiation by th(: former. 
Provided that th(: year of allotment of an officer appointed to the se,vice 
in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the recruitment rules who sta:ie:l 
offic.iating continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date on 
which any of the officers recruited to the service in accordance with rule 7 of 
thes·e rules, 60 started officiating, shall be determined ad hoc bv the Centn.l 
Government in consultation with the State Government concerned. 
Provided further that an officer appointed to the service after the commence-
ment of these rules i:n accordM'!ce with sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the recruitment 
rules shall be deemed to have been officiating continuously i11 a senior post prior 
to date of inclusion of his name in the 'Select List' prepared in accordance with 
the requirenients of the Indian Administrative &rvice (Appointment by Promo-
tion) Regulations framed under sub-rule (l) of rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 
if the pe,.iod of such officiation prior to that date is approved by the Centre[ 
Government in consultation with the Commission. 
Explanation [.-The officer shall be deemed to hai·e officiated continuousl:v 
in a senior post from a certa;.n date if during the period from that date to the 
date of his ·Confirmation in the Senior Grade he continues to hold without any 
break or reversion, a senior post otherwise than as a purely temporary or local 
arrangenzent." 
The various posts held by the petitioner during the period 1960-67 were cadre 
posts rankwise. Those posts were not formally declared equivalent to cad'e posts 
as required by rule 3(3) (b). In effect some of the posts held by the petitioner 
du.ring the period in question were superior to the cadre posts. 
. 
HELD : Although the petitioner has occupied responsible positions vis-a-vis 
cadre post. the formal requirements of rule 3 (3) (b) are basic to his claim for 
pre-dating his entry int0 the I.A.S. 
Secondly, the rule requires as a condition 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
]<' 
:G 
11 
ANIL KUMAR v. NSSAM (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
879 
precedent that offbation must be in a particular post declared as cadre post by 
the State Governmeat with the approval of the Central Government. The 
argument that the declaration of the State Government must be inferred from 
the counter affidavit filed in this Court was negatived on the ground that the 
Gover;1m.en:s speak and act formally and in solemn writing and not informally. 
Even 1f It is assumed that the State Government has made such a declaration 
in the C"tH1ter affidavit no such declaration has been approved by the Central 
Gov,_·rnmem as required. [883 D-E, G-H; 884 DJ 
HE:L D FURTHER : 
The petitioner's officiation was not continuous since 
'.here w_n, ~ gap of one week and that, there

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