BAIDYANATH JENA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 667 · Decided: 18-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAIDYANATH JENA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1998 
(MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service 'Law: 
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations of 
1955/!ndian Policy Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954/lndian 
C 
Police (Cadre) Rules, 1954: 
Regulations 5 and 7(4)/Rule 3(3)(b)/Rule 9--0fficers of Olissa State 
Police Se1vice-Promotion to• Indian Police Se1vice-Names included in 
Select list prepared in 1982-Some of the officers whose names were included 
in the 1982 List but could not be promoted duling the relevant period were D 
not included in Select List of 198J-171ey claimed that their names should 
have been considered for inclusion in the fresh list-Held, the Regulations do 
not indicate that the officers included in the previous list will continue to f omi 
a pmt of the new Select List when provisions of Regulation 5 are expressly to 
the contrary--Only exception is in the case of those who were in the previous 
list and who have in the meanwhile attained the age of 54 years. 
I 
Indian Police Se1vice (Regulations of Senio1ity) Rules, 1954: 
Rule 3(3)(b)-Member of Olissa State Police Se1vice-Promotion to 
Indian Police Se1vice-Senio1ity-Officer intem1ittently officiating in the In-
dian Police Se1vice on purely temporaiy basis before his regular appointment 
to the Service-Claim for seniolity from date of his initial tempora1y appoint-
ment to the service-Held, the officiation in the JPS Cadre will count for 
seniority provided such officiation is continuous and the post is not held as 
a purely temporaiy or local a!Tangement. 
E 
F 
A select list of officers of Orissa Police Service for promotion to G 
Indian Police Service was prepared in 1982. Some of the officers could not 
be appointed to the I.P.S. Cadre. In December 1983 again a Select List was 
prepared, but as there were no anticipated vacancies in the forthcoming 
year, the Select List was prepared under sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 
5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulation of H 
667 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 1955, with the result that names of some of the officers who had been 
included in the 1982 List could not be included in the 1983 List. These 
officers challenged the Select List of 1983 and the case came to be heard by 
a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (T.A. No. 90 
of 1987). TI1eir case was that proviso to sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5 
,-
B 
provided that the officer whose name appeared in previous Select List 
should be considered for inclusion in the fresh list. 
Another application (0.A. 146 of 1988) was filed before the Tribunal 
by 'R' an officer of the Orissa Police Service whose name was included in 
the.1982 List but was not included in the 1983 List. He intermittently 
c officiated in the Indian Police Service from 1982 under Rule 9 of the l.P.S. 
(Cadre) Rules, 1959. During the period of his officiation in the Indian 
Police Service, he was also posted in the Orissa Police Service Cadre or 
elsewhere. His case was-that his officiating service in the Indian Police 
Service should be counted for seniority. Later, he filed another application 
D (0.A. No. 97 of 1989) and the Tribunal gave a deemed date of 1.2.1989 as 
the date of his regular promotion to the l.P.S. Cadre. This judgment was 
not challenged. 'R' then claimed that his officiating service in the l.P.S. 
cadre from 23.6.1982, the date when he was appointed to officiate in Indian 
Police Service, should count for seniority in the 1.P.S. Cadre. 
E 
The Tribunal allowed the application and held that the applicants 
who were in the Select List of 1982 were required to be considered for the 
Select List of 1983; and that applicant 'R' was entitled to his seniority in 
Indian Police Service since 1982. Aggrieved, the officers who were in the 
Select List of 1983 and promoted to Indian Police Service, the Union of 
F India and the State of Orissa filed the present appeals. 
It was contended for the respondent-original applicants that in view 
of the proviso to sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5 every person who was 
on the previous Select List of 1982 was entitled to be considered for 
G 
inclusion in the Select List for the next year, i.e. Select List of 1983. It was 
further contended that sub-regulation ( 4) of Regulation 7 provided that 
-
the Select List should ordinarily be in force until its review and revisi

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