D. RADHAKRISHNAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 02-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

D. RADHAKRISHNAN
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 2, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
JPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules:
Rule 3(3)-Assignment of year of allotment-Appellant included in the C
select list in 1979 and approved by UPSC--The list continued for 198()--Jn
1981 his name was not included for want of vacancies allottable to State
Cadre-Again he was included in 1982 in the select list and approved by
UPSC-Before the Tribunal he challenged his non-inclusion in 1981 and that
his year of allotment should be 1980 as he was continuously officiating from D
1980-0n appeal held, appellant entitled to his year of allotment only from
the date when he was later included in the select list in 1982.
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Supp. 3 SCC
575 & R.RS. Chauhan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., [1995) Supp. 3 SCC
109, relied on.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11997 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 3 of 1992.
F
G. Umapathy and K. Swami for the Appellant.
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswamy, Sr. Adv.,
P. Parameshwaran, Ms. Sushma Suri and V. Krishnamurthy, for the respon- _
&~
•
.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
431
H
A
B
c
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 23, 1995 in OA
No. 3/92. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed to
Tamil Nadu State Police Services by direct recruitment on October 7, 1979.
He was transferred and posted as D.C.P., Law & Order, Madras (South)
which is a cadre post, w.e.f. July 27, 1980 and ever since he had been
continuously officiating in the cadre post. He was included in the select,
list for the first time, on October 26, 1979 approved by the UPSC on
December 12, 1979. the same list was continued for the year 1980. But in
the select list for the year 1981, he was not included for want of requisite
vacancy allottable to the State cadre. Consequently, he came to be included
again on December 16, 1982 in the select list approved by the UPSC on
March 28, 1983. When his seniority was determined, the order of allotment
indicated that 1978 was fixed as his year of allotment. He questioned the
correctness thereof on two grounds, namely, his non-inclusion in the list
for the year 1981 was qad in law; he also contended that since he was
D continuously officiating from 1980 and was included in the select list for
the first time in the year 1979, his year of allotment should be 1980. Both
the contentions were negatived by the Tribunal. The question for con-
sideration, therefore, is : whether the Tribunal is right in its conclusion?
Rule 3(3) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules reads as under :
E
F
G
"3. Assignment of year of Allotment.
(1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accord-
ance with the provisions hereinafter contained in this rule.
(2) .......................................................................................................... .
6
(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service
after the commencement of these rules shall be -
(a) where the officer is appointed to the service of the results
of a competitive examination the year following the year in
which such examination was held;
(b) where the officer is appointed to the service by promotion in
accordance with rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the year of
allotment of the junior-mo.st among the officers recruited to
H
the service in accordance with rule 7 of these Rules who
...
..
D. RAD HA.KRISHNAN v. U.0.1.
433
officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier A
than the date of commencement of such officiation by the
former.
Provided that the year of allotment of an officer appointed to the
Service in accordance with Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules who
started officiating 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 those Rules, so started officiating shall
be determined ad hoc by the Central Government in consultation
with the State Government concerned.
Explanation 1 c In respect of an o

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