O.S. SINGH AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 12-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

O.S. SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
OCTOBER 12, 1995 
[S.C AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK .J.J.] 
Sc1vicc Law. 
l.P.S. Rec11titment Rules 1954'-R 4 & 6. 
l.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulatio11 1955-Regulation 5,7,9. 
Promoti<m-State Police Se1vice to l.P.S.-Delay due to adverse 
ren1arks-Re111arks expunge~Retrospective appointn1ent given-Benefit 
given i11 fixing year of allotment and inter-se senioiity. 
A 
B 
c 
l.P.S. (Regulation of Seni01ity) Rules-1954'-R 3 (2) (b )-Suffm from D 
'casus 01nissus'. 
Statut01y inteipretation of R 3 (2) (b)-'Such officiatio11' to mean 
'Substantive appointntent' in cases where proniotee did not officiate in senior 
post p1ior to date of substantive appointntent. 
'Casus ontissus'-Judicial decisions-Two trend~Traditional ap-
proach that cowts ca1111ot legislate-Other to fi11d the i11te111io11 of Parliament. 
Year of allotment-To be related to date of substa11tive appoi11tment-
Con1petent autho1it_v can assign. 
Distinction between-'Substantive' and 'officiating' ap]Jointnient. 
Appellant was in State Police Service. His name was not included in 
E 
F 
the select lists for 1974 to 1976 for promotion to l.P.S. from State Police 
Service due to adverse remarks. On representation, the remarks were 
expunged and his name was included in select list in 1977. He nlTiciated in G 
a senior post in the 1.P.S. from March 30, 1998. Appellant filed writ 
petition Llefore il.P. High Court in 1984 for reconsideration of his case. 
The High Court, relying onA.K. Clwwdluy v. State of Bihar and Q,,·., [1984] 
2 S.C.R. 299, passed an interim order whereon the State Govt. recom-
mended the Appellant's name to the Union Govt. which decided to appoint H 
261 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
him to the I.P.S. with effect from March 31, 1976 and assigned the year of 
allotment as 1970 based on R 3(3)(b) of Seniority Rules and inter-.1·c 
seniority the Appellant was placed above Respondent No. 4. Aggrieved, by 
the fixation seniority Respondent No. 4 challenged the Union Govt.'s order 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. 
B 
The Tribunal, relying on R 3(3) (b), of the Seniority Rules, held that 
the year of allotment must be related to continuous ofliciation of' the junior 
most ollicer in a senior post from a date earlier than the Appellant. Since 
Respondent No. 4 was the junior most ollicer, the year the allotment of the 
Appellant was to be 1973 and he was held to be junior to Respondent No. 
C 4 who was a direct recruit. 
D 
From the said order of the Tribunal two Appeals were filed before 
this court - one by the Appellant and the other by the Union of India. On 
behalf of the appellants it was contented that the Tribunal erred in taking 
into account continuous officiation only, overlooking the retrospective date 
of appgintment and the appellant having been reconsidered and appointed 
from 31-3-76, his seniority is to be related to that date and the period from 
March 31, 1976 till March 30, 1978 cannot be ignored. Respondent No. 4 
relied on Syed Khalid Rizvi's case, J.T. Supp l SC 169, and submitted that 
the year of allotment must be as per Rule 3(3) (b) of Seniority Rules and 
E 
retrospective appointment is of no consequence. 
F 
G 
Allowing the Appeals and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, 
this Court 
HELi) : J. The Tribunal was in error in arriving at the year of 
allotn1ent as 1973 based only on appellant's continuous ofliciation in a 
senior post with etlect from March 30, 1978 and ignoring the Union Govt's 
decision to appoint him retrospectively with effect from March 31, 1976. 
Seniority of Appellant vis-a-vis Respondent No. 4, is not to be based on 
factual officiation but on actual date of appointment. Benefit of recon-
sideration cannot be taken away for determining year of allotment and 
seniority. TI1e order of Union Govt. is not arbitrary and 
follows the 
scheme of Rule 3 (3) (b) of Seniority Rules. [269-R-C] 
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. U.O.J. & Ors., J.T. Supp 1, 169, distin-
H guished. 
0.S. SINGH v. U.O.l. 
263 
A.K. Chowdhry v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR 299, relied on. A 
2. 'Officiating continuously in a senior post' in R. 3(3) (b), of Seniority 
Rules, is to be construed to mean holding a senior post on officiating basis 
prior to substantive appointment on it. Since a person substantively ap-
pointed to a post cannot be treated as officiating on the post after he has been 
substantively
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.