LexMARKANDEY SINGH, I.P.S., & ORS. versus M.L. BRANOT, I.P.S., & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
}
MARKANDEY SINGH, I.P.S., & ORS.
A
v.
M.L. BRANOT, I.P.S .. , & ORS.
_ MAY 4, 1988
[R.S._PATHAK, C.J., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND
B
r
S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]
Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules-Challeng-
i'
ing order of High Court in matter of rectification of year of allotment of
absorption in Indian Police Service, quashing order of allotment of year
~
in I.P.S. Cadre, passed by Central Government-Whether benefit of c
officiation on senior post in l.P.S. cadre of a State while on deputation
to State Police Service of that State from another State, in matter of
fixation of year of allotment could be claimed under proviso to rule
3(3)(b) of.
Shri Markandey Singh, the appellant in the first appeal had
D
joined the U .P. State Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police by
passing a competitive examination. In November, 1953, he joined on
deputation the Union Territory of Delhi which at that time had no
~
police service of its own. While on deputation and again in 1959-60, he
officiated as Superintendent of Police but was reverted back for
administrative reasons. In July, 1960, Hirnachal Pradesh Indian Police
E
Service was created and thereafter, the Delhi-Himachal Pradesh Police
Service, in March 1961. On 6th December, 1961, Shri Singh was again
promoted to officiate as Superintendent of Police. During the period of
his officiation, his request for being absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh
'
State Police Service was accepted and he was absorbed in the State
Service with effect from 27th November, 1962. He was confirmed in
F
the Union Territory Cadre of I.P.S. with effect from 14th May, 1964.
He was assigned 1958 as the year of allotment. He made a representa-
lion against the order of allotment to the Central Government, claiming
the benefit of officiation from 6th December, 1961 to 13th May, 1963 in
the matter of fixation of his year of allotment. The Central Government
rejected the representation by order dt. 23rd April, 1970, which stated
G
J
that in accordance with the orders contained in letter NO. 1/2/62 Delhi
IDH(S) dated 23.8.1963 of the Home Ministry, all cadre posts held by
non-cadre officers not on the Select List were deemed to have been kept
in abeyance with effect from 27th September, 1961 onwards, and
according to the seniority rules, the service rendered by an officer prior
to his inclusion in the Select List could not be counted for seniority H
847
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] 3 S.C.R.
~
A
unless approved by the Central Government in consultation with the
Union Public: Service Commission under the Second Proviso to rule
3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules. The requisite approval was not there.
Shri Singh made a second representation on 23rd June, 1970. The
Central Government by order dt. 21st June, 1973, accepted the second
B representation, gave the benefit of officiation in question and assigned
'{
to him 1956 as the year of allotment. The reason why the second rep·
resentation was accepted was that in November, 1972, the Union Public
Service Commission had approved of the officiation of Shrl Singh in the
I.P.S. cadre for the relevant period under the second proviso to rule l
3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules "as they stood in May, 1963." In consequ-
c ence, he was placed above Shri M.L. Bhanot, respondent, in the grada-
tion list of Union Territory ofl.P .S.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Government, Shri
Bhanot filed a writ petition before the High Court. A Single Judge
allowed the same, and quashed the order dt. 21st June, 1973. Against
D the judgment of the Single Judge, two appeals were filed before the
Division Bench of the High Court-<1ne by Shri Singh, and the second,
by the Union of India. Both the appeals were dismissed· by the Division
Bench. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Shri Singh and the
Union oflndia filed these two appeals for reliefin this Court.
~
E
Dismissing the appeals with directions, the Court,
HELD: The question involved in the appeals was whether the
year of allo.tment given to Shri Singh as 1958 was correct or not and
whether the order of the High Court, quashing the year of allotment
given to Shri Singh as 1956 was bad or not. This depended upon the r
F
interpretation of the various rules and provisions and the determination -
of the question whether an officer was entitled to the benefit of the
service rendered by him in a senior post in the l.P .S. cadre Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.