S.L. CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 01-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD

Judgment (excerpt)

--
--
S.L. CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 1, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Manipur Police Se1vice Rules, 1965-Rules 24, 5( l)(b ), 14, 15 and 
l6-Se11iority--Detenni11atio11 of-Length of service-Reckoning of--Officiat-
C 
ing promotion under R. 24-Subsequent promotion order under R. 5(1)(b) 
r/w R.16-Fixation of seniority--Period of service rendered 011 officiating 
appoi11tme11t-No11-co11sideration of-Held, unless there is a contrary rule, 
service rendered 011 probation or officiating capacity cannot be ignored-No 
substantive difference between the list prepared under R. 24 and the one 
prepared under R. 14 and R. 16 since both have been prepared on the basis D 
of merit-No justification for issuing promotion order under R. 5(1)(b) r/w 
R.J(r-()Jficiating appointment directed to be treated as regular and seniority 
to be refixed accordingly-Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Police 
Service Rules, 1971-Constitution of India, 1950 Article 309. 
Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Service Rules, 
1971-Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965-Held, are in pari materia. 
. 
The issue involved in the present appeals was whether the period 
E 
of service rendered by a person on probation or officiating appointment 
could be counted towards his seniority. Appellant-police officers were 
F 
promoted to the post of Manipur Police Service Grade II in officiating 
capacity under Rule 24 of Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965. Sub-
sequently, another order was issued purporting to re-appoint the appel-
lants on promotion in terms of Rule S(l)(b) r/w rule 16 of the Rules. 
Services rendered by appellants in officiating capacity was not taken into 
consideration while preparing the seniority list. On challenge before High G 
Court, Single Judge held that the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island 
Police Service Rules, 1971 were in pari materia w.ith · Manipur Police Service 
w 
. 
Rules and relying upon the judgment of this Court in Bhatia's case 
directed the respondent State to treat the date of officiating appointments 
of appellants as regular appointments and to refix the seniority accord-
H 
323 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A ingly. However, on appeal, Full Bench of High Court held that the Delhi 
an-d Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Service Rules were in pari 
materia with Manipur Police Service Rules; thus it set aside the order of 
Single Judge on the ground that the judgment of this Court in Bhatia's 
case was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence 
B the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is well settled that even in cases of probation or 
officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a 
C contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or 
on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous 
officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where the 
first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure and 
such appointee is approved later on, the approval would mean his confir-
mation by the authority shall relate back to the date on which his appoint-
D ment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning 
the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. [343-B-C-D] 
E 
1.2. Thus, in the instant case, the period of service rendered by the 
appellants in officiating capacity should be treated as regular service and 
their seniority should be refixed accordingly. [344-D] 
G.P. Doval & Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. & Ors., 
[1984] 4 sec 329, relied on. 
1.3. No rule in terms of Article 309 is shown to have been made by the 
F respondent Government which provides that appointment to a post would 
necessarily be on probation for a period of two years. It is true that Govern-
ment by Executive orders made under constitutional provisions has the 
power to regulate the recruitment and the condition of service but no such 
Government Order can alter or amend the existing rules on the subject. In 
the 1965 Rules no period of probation was prescribed for the post of 
G Inspectors of Police. Thus, the appointment of the appellants was to be 
treated as substantive appointment in the absence of a rule to the contrary. 
[342-D; E; F] 
• 
2. The Delhi and Andaman and Nicabor Island Police Service Rules, 
1971 

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