RAMCHANDRA DAYARAM GAWANDE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMCHANDRA DAYARAM GAWANDE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
!PS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955/IPS (Regulation 
C of Seniority) Rules, 1954//PS (Cadre) Rules, 1954: 
Regulation 9/Rule 3(3)(b)/Rule 5(1)-Appointment to !PS cadre by 
promotion from State Police Service-Claim for seniority and year of allot-
ment-Failure to convene a meeting for selection for candidates and prepara-
tion of annual seniority list-Held, appointment of the promotee officer to 
D Indian Police Service by Central Government is mandatory requirement to 
claim seniority and the year of allotment-Candidate put in the s.elect list does 
hot acquire any substantive right to appointment until approval of the list by 
UPSC and appointment by Central Government-Mere giVing promotion to 
a State Police Officer and posting him to a cadre post does not clothe him 
E with a right to be appointed with effect from the year in which he was 
temporarily promoted and posted to cadre post-<Iovemment have prpperly 
explained the circumstances in which the Committee could not meet to 
consider the claims for selection of the candidates. 
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 
F 576, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9060-61 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order of the Central Administrative 
G Tribunal Bombay Bench dated 18.8.95 in O.A. No. 557/90 and Judgment 
and Order dated 28.9.95 in R.P. No. 93/95 in 0.A. No. 557 of 1990. 
K. Madbava Reddy, A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants. 
V.N. Ganpule, R.N. Keshwani and D. M. Nargolkar for the Respon-
H dents. 
856 
'I 
-\ 
R.D. GAWANDE v. U.O.l. 
857 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
.., 
~ 
Leave granted. 
>ot 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The appellant appointed to a substantive post in State Police Service B 
'1 
was promoted as a Superintendent of Police in senior time scale on May 
11, 1976. He was brought on select list for the year 1977. He was given 
seniority in the All India Police Service from promotee quota w.e.f. April 
30, 1978. Since he was brought on the select list on the said date under 
Rule 3(3)(b) of the JPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rues, 1954 (for short, the c 
\ 
'Rules'), the appellant claimed the year of allotment, i.e., 1972 under JPS 
' 
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, which was rejected by the Tribunal 
in the impugned order dated August 18, 1995 in OA No. 557/90. 
' Notice was issued confining to the question as to what would be the 
consequence of failure to convene a meeting for selection of the candidates D 
and preparation of the annual seniority list. 
It is stated in the counter affidavit that on November 23, 1976 in a 
• 
> 
meeting, Selection Committee considered the claims of a total number of 
30 State Police Officers and ultimately found 9 officers to be brought on E 
the select list. Notification was issued by the Government of India on June 
17, 1977 to appoint 8 officers from the select list of 1976 under Rule 5(1) 
of the JPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. By notification dated August 27, 1977, the 
list of officers for the selection was to be considered but it could not be 
,. 
considered on account of the strike in the State and the meeting was 
postponed. Ultimately, a meeting came to be held on February 15, 1978 F 
and the names of 5 persons were listed in the select list of whom the 
appellant was 5th in the order of merit. The appellant came to t>e given 
the seniority from April 30, 1978 when the vacancy from promotee quota 
has arisen. 
Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, G 
A 
contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Syed Iha/id Rizvi & 
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 576, it is mandatory on 
-; 
the part of the State to prepare every year the select list of Deputy Superin-
' 
tendent of Police to fill up vacancies which have arisen in the year to the quota 
. 
and to promote them to the JPS cadre under Regulation 9 of the JPS H 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 which was held to be 
mandatory. It is incumbent upon the State Government to conduct a meet-
ing and select the officers and allot the year of allotment to fulfil the 
legitimate expectation of the right to consider for promotion. Though ex-
planation has been sought to be given by the Government for failur

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