M.V. KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 27-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.V. KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 27, 1994 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Service Law: l.P.S.(Cadre) Rules/l.P.S.(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 
1954: 
C 
Rule 9/Rule 3(3) E.xplanation I-Direct recrnits and promotees-
Seniority-Year of allotment-Inclusion in Select list as per Promotion Regu-
lations-Continuous service rendered in cadre post from that date-Taking 
into consideration for the purposes of detennining year of allotment-Validity 
of. 
D 
The appellants were direct recruits to the Indian Police Service and 
Respondents 5-11 were promotees from State Police Service. The 
promotees were included in the select list prepared in accordance with the 
I.P.S. Promotion Regulations and even before their inclusion they were 
already officiating in the cadre posts. Taking their dates of appointment 
E to I.P.S. the Government of India assigned the year of allotment for 
purposes of seniority. The promotees approached the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal claiming that since they officiated in the cadre post they were 
entitled to count their service from the date of continuous officiation, and 
consequently they would get the year 1973 as their year of allotment. The 
Tribunal allowed their claim. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment, the 
F 
appellant-direct recruits preferred the present appeals. 
The appellants contended that the posting of the promotees in cadre 
posts even prior to their inclusion in ·the select list and before their 
appointment to I.P.S. was contrary to rules; that the continuation of the 
respondents in cadre posts beyond three months of their posting was in 
G clear violation of Rule 9 of the I.P.S. (Cadre) Rules, especially when there 
was no prior concurrence of the Central Government; and that the posting 
of the promotees in cadre posts was also illegal inasmuch as cadre officers 
was available and, therefore, the service rendered by the promotees on the 
basis of temporary local arrangement made before their appointment to 
H the cadre could not be counted. 
400 
M.V.K. RAO v. U.0.1. 
401 
The respondents contended that the promotees were not seeking to A 
-( 
count their service rendered in the cadre post prior to their inclusiou in 
the select post, but only the continuou~ officiating servke rendered in 
-
cadre posts on and after their inclusion in the select list; and that none of 
the appellant-direct recruits was eligible to bold the post when the 
promotees were posted in the cadre posts; and, therefore, they bad no locus B 
standi to contest the claim of the promotees. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. Though the promotees were posted to cadre posts even 
prior to the date of their inclusion in the select list, they do not claim to c 
count it for the purpose of determining their year of allotment. By virtue 
of the Explanation (1) to Rule 3 of the I.P.S. (Regulation of Seniority) 
Rules, 1954 they arc entitled to count the lesser period alone, which in their 
case happens to be their continuous officiation from the date of their 
inclusion in the select list. This is the effect of Explanation (1) to Rule 3(3) D 
of the said Rules. [408-F] 
C+--
1.2. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding nor is any material 
placed before this Court to show that on January 9, 1978 cadre officers 
were available and that inspite of the same the said promotees were posted 
E 
to cadre posts. So also there is nothing on record to show that the posting 
of the promotees in cadre posts was by way of local or temporary arran-
gement. [409-B] 
""' 
1.3. Though the State Government promptly intimated the Central 
rl 
Government of the posting of the promotees in cadre posts, the Central F 
Government took an inordinately long time to respond and they wrote back 
- only on January 5, 1985 disapproving the said posting not on ground ot 
violation of Rule 9 of the I.P.S. Cadre Rules but on the ground of over-
utilisation of deputation reserve. The Tribunal rightly gave a finding that 
it cannot constitute a relevant ground for depriving the promotees of their 
G 
service subsequent to January 9, 1978 for the purpose of Explanation (1) 
• 
to Rule 3(3) of Seniority Rules, and the same is not disputed. [409-E-G] 
-ii..__ 
Syed Khalid Rizvi and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1993] 
Suppl. 3 S.C.C. 575 & H.R. Kasturi Rangan v. Union of India & Ors., (C.A. 
3891-95/93 dated 28.7.1993), referred to. 
H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.