STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. versus B. K. MOHAPATRA

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 11-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
( 
E 
F 
G 
R 
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. 
v. 
B. K. MOHAPATRA 
April 11, 1_969 
[S. M. _S_IKRI, R 
S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
255 
The lrtdian Police Service (Regulation of 
Seniority) Rules, 
1954, 
r. 3(3) (b), second provisrr--Select List, Meaning of-Whether secnnd 
proviso goi·erns main -ntle or first proviso--fVhether choice of date for 
fixing seniorit,v arbitrary and discriminatory. 
_ 
. 
In pursuance. of an agreement dated October 21, 1946, bet\veen the 
Central and Provincial Governments regarding the constitution 
of 
an 
Indian Police Service, certain draft 'rules were framed and the appellant 
State constituted a Committee under the draft rules for preparing a list 
of State-Police Officers who are considered suitable _for promotion. The 
Committee prepared: a list of officers 'fit 1for trial to promotion po5ts' in the 
· l.P.S. and the list was approved by the U.P.S.C. on September 6, 1951. On 
October 29, 1951, the All India Services Act, 1951, came into fon:e and . 
the Indian Police ~ervice (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 and the 
Indian Police Service (Appointment. by Promotion) ~Regulation, 1955, 
were framed under the Act; Rule 3(3){b) of the Seniority Rules provides 
that the yea'r of allotment of an officer appointed to the service by promo-
tion shall be the year of allotment of the junior most direct-recruit who 
officiated continuously in a senic;tr post from a date earlier than the. Jate 
of comn1encement of continuous of]iciatio11 by the promotee. The second 
proviso to the rule provides that an officer shall be deemed to have ofli-
ciated continuously in a senior post prior to the date of the inclusion of his 
name in the Select List if the period of such officiation was approved by 
the Central Government. 
· 
The respondent was appointed as a Dy. S.P. in the appellant-Sta~ in 
1947. In 1950, he 'Vas confirmed as D.S.P. and be was officiating conti-
', nuously from 1951 to 1957 in senior officiating appointments of the l.P.S. 
His name was included in the List of officers considered suitable for pro-
niotion v.:hich \Vas approved by·the U.P.S.C. on September 6, 1951, and in 
similar 'fit for trial' lists prepared for the years 
1952 and 1954. On 
November 10, 1955, the Selection Committee~ set up in accordance with-
Re.gufation 3 of the Promotion Regulation. selected and -recommended 
officers for officiating appointment in the I.P .S. and the respondent's name 
was included in that list also. That list was approved by the U.P.S.C. on· 
February 10, 1956. 
On December I, 1956, the Government of India 
consulted the U.P.S.C. as to whether this list of November 10, 1955 coutd 
be treated as the- 'Select List' within the meaning of the second proviso to · 
'r. 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules. 
The U.P.S.C. wrote back sayini; that 
. it could not be so considered, because, the Committee -only recommended 
- officers. who were considered suitable to .hold l.P.S. posts in an offeciating 
capGcit;~ and not for appointment to I.P.S. 
The Selection Committee of 
the appellant-State, therefore, on February 15, 1957, prepared a 'Sdect 
List' for substantive posts in the -1.P.S. and-- included the respondent's 
name in it. - The Central Gove'rnmcnt decided that the officiation in. the 
senior posts of the officers included in the 'fit for trial' lists could~ not be ~ 
counted for the pnrpose 
of determining the seniority of such 
officers 
uncier the Seniority Rules. On July 10, 1957 the respondent was appoint-
ed to the 1.P.S., and on July 22, 1958, the Central Government wrote 
to the appellant-State that the approved continuous. officiation 
of-~ the 
256 
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS 
· .. 
(1970]1 S.C.R. 
respondent for seniority, ~ommenced from 'February 10, 1956 the date 
on which the U.P.S.C. approved the •fit for continuous officiation Jist' 
containing the respondent's name, and, on that basis, the respondent \\·as 
a11otted the year 1951 as his year of allotment for purposes of seniority 
under 'r. 3 (3 )(b) of the Seniority Rules. 
The_ respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court contending 
that: (1) Rule 3(3)(b) is not governed by its second .proviso, that bis 
case was governed by the main r. 3(3)(b) and on the basis of his con-
tinuous officiation in a senior post as an officer included .in the Select List 
·of the years 1952 and 1954 approved by the U.P.S.C. and accepted by the 
Central Government his yea'r_- of allotment should be 1948 \vhich \\·as 
the year -of 

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