R. P. KHANNA & ORS. versus S.A.F. ABBAS & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 22-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

548 
R. P. KHANNA & ORS. 
v. 
S.A.F. ABBAS & ORS. ETC. 
February 22, 1972 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
ltidian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1954, 
Rule 3(3) (b)-Year of allotment of promotee--Officiation in senior post 
prior to inclusion of promotee's name in Select List can be taken into 
consjderation only after approval by Central Government 
and 
Union 
Public Service 
Commission-Post held by promotee 
may be declared 
equivc.:lent to senior post rettrospectively. 
Rule 3(3){b) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of 
Senicnty) Rules 1954 laid down in its main part that tlr. year of allot-
ment of an officer who was appointed to the service by promotion shall 
™' the year of allotment of the junior-most among the officers who en-
tered th: service by direct recruitment who 
offici~ted continuously in a 
senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such 
officiation by the former. The second proviso to the rule laid d~wn that 
a promotee shall he deemed to have officiated dpntinuously in a senior 
post prior to the date of inclusion of his name in the Select List prepared 
in accordance with ·the requirements of the lndi':ln Adniinistrative Service 
{Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, if the period of such officia-
tion prior to that date was approved by the Central Government in con-
sultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The appellants be-
came members of the Indian Administrative Service in the years 1949 and 
1950 by direct recruitm_ent. 
The respondents were initially recruited to 
the executive branch of the Bihar State Civil Service and were subse-
quently in the years 1955 and 1956 promoted to the Indian Administra-
tive Service. The Government of India on 3 September 1958 allotted to 
the respondents the year 1948 and placed them below the junior most 
amongst the direct recruits of the 1948 allotment in purported compliance 
with Rule 3 ( 3 )(b) aforesaid. 
The appellants thereupon made a repre-
Sentation to the Union Government as a result Of which the Union Gov-
ernment by order dated 20 September 1967 revised the seniority of the 
promotees and allotted to some of the promotees the year 1950 and to 
others the year 1952. In making this order the Government of India 
agreed with the Ministry of Law in its view that rule 2{g) of the Seniority 
Rules did not perm.it retrospective declaration of a post as equivalent to a 
senior post within the meaning of Rule 3(3){b) as had been done by the 
State Government in the ca~e, of the respondents. The respondents chal-
lenged the Union Government's order dated 20 September 1967 in the 
High Court. 
That Court quashed the said order and directed that the 
promotees would continue to hold the year of allotment assigned to them 
in the year 1958. Jn appeal to this Court by the direct recruits the ques-
tions that fell for consideration were {i) whether the period of officiation 
in a senior post by a promotees prior to the inclusion of his name in the 
Select List could be taken into consi!leration without the app~oval of the 
Central Government and the Union Public Service Commission as requir-
ed by Rule 3(3){b); (ii) whether the State Government was authorised 
to retrospectively declare a post as equivalent to a 'senior post'; 
(iii) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. P. KHANNA V, &. A. F. ABBAS (Ray, J.) 
549 
whether in the circumstances of the case the order of the High Court 
restoring the year 1948 as the year df allotment for the respondents was 
right. 
· 
HELD : (i) The Select List for the promotion of the respondents was 
fiually approved by the Uiiion Public Service Cornmm..ion on 26 Decem· 
ber 1955. Rule 3(3)(b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954 speaks 
of approval by the Central Government in consultation with the Union 
Public Service Commission of the period of the officiation prior to the 
date of the inclusion of the names of the promotees in the select list. 
This approval '.lS contemplated in rule 3(3) (b) is a specific.approval and 
is directed to the particular matter mentioned therein as to whetber there 
is approval of the period of officiation prior to the inclusion of tne names 
in the selec~ list. 
On the materials in the pre,.,nt appeals it could not 
be held that the Central Government gave any approval in consultation 
with lhe Union Public Service Commission within the meaning of rule 
3(3)(b) so as to enabl

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