D. R. NIM, I. P. S. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 05-01-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
r 
G 
H 
D. R. NIM, I. P. S. 
l'. 
UNION OF INDIA 
January 5, 1967 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI 
AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Civil Service-l11diqn folice Service (Regulation of Se1tiority) Rules, 
1954, r. 3-0ffic.r appoint.ed by promotion-Seniurity, lww determined. 
Under r. 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) 
Rules 1954, issued under s. 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951, 
the ,;,ode of determining the seniority of officers of the Indian Police 
Service is as follows : The officers are divided into categories : (I) those 
in the Service at the commencement of the Rules, and (2) those appoint~ 
ed to the Service after the commencement of the Rules. The second 
category is divided into two sub-<:ategories : (a) officers appointed as a 
result of a competitive examination, and (b) officers appointd by promo-
tion in accordance with r. 9 of the Recruitment Rules. The year of 
allotment of an officer which determines hi& seniority, is determined 
according to r. 3(3)(a) or (b}. But if an officer started officiating 
continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date on which 
any of the officers was recruited to the Service by competition, the year 
of allotment had to be determined ad hac by the Central Government, 
under proviso (1) tor. 3(3)(b}, and undor proviso (2) tor. 3(3)(b) 
the period of officiation before the date of inclusion of the name of an 
officer in the Select List prepared in accordance with the ref!uirements 
of the Indian Police Service (Appoint.men! by Promotion) Regulatio...,. 
would be counted, only if such period was approved by the Central 
Govemm1,,.nt in consu1tation with the Public Service CoIDm.Ission. 
The appellant was officiating as Superintendent of Police from June 
1947; that is from a date earlier than the date of any officer recruited 
by competition, and was appointed to the Indian Police Service by promo-
tion in 1955 after the commencement of the Seniority Rules. His name 
was included in the Select List in 1956. 
The Goverwnent passed an 
order on 25th August 1955, that officers promoted to the Indian Police 
Service should be allowed the benefit of their continuous officiation with 
effect only from 19th May 1951. The appellant challen~ed the order by 
a petition under Art. 226, because the period of his officiation from June 
1947 to May 1951 has excluded for the purpose of fixatio" of his seniority. 
The High Court dismissed the petition. 
, In appeal fo this Court, 
HELD : The impugned order dated 25th August 1955 should be 
quashed and the Central Government directed to fix the year of allotment 
and seniority of the appellant accarding to law. 
The date 19th May 1951, was an artificial and arbitrary date having 
nothing '.O do with the application of the fi~t and the second t>rovisos to 
r. 3(3). It has some relevance for the Indian Administrative Service, 
but why it should be applied to the Indian Police Service was not ade-
quately explained. 
Under the two provisos, the Central Government had 
to determine ad hoc the year of allotment after approving or not approv-
ing the period of officiation in consultation with lhe Public Service Com-
mission. taking jnto consideration all the .relevant facts. 
The Central 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[196712 S.C.R. 
Government cannot pick out a date and say that a period prior to that 
A 
dale would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government 
wit.bin tho second proviso. [331 B, E-G) 
(2) In view of the facts that he was officiating for eight years, that 
tc hJ.<1 nev"< been revened and that he was appointed to the post wh.n 
vacancies fell .. it could not be held that the appellant's continuous offi-
ciation a mere temporary or local or stop-gap arranbement, within the 
meaning of Explanation I tor. 3(3)(b). [332 GJ 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICnos : Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1965· 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 8, 1961 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi 
in Civil Writ No. 507-D of 1961. 
B. P.. L. Iyengar, B. llutta, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain• 
for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra, R. Ga11apathy Iyer and R. S. Saclzthey, for the 
respondent. 
Basudcv Prarad, K. Raje11dra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, 
c 
for the intervener. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
jun -nent of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.