SYED KHALID RIZVI AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 20-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SYED KHALID RIZVI AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1992 
[AM. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Civil Services: JPS (Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954/IPS (Appoint-
ment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955: Rules 3(3)(b) and 2(g) Regulation 
5-Direct Recrnits and promotees from U.P. State Police Service Special 
Grade Deputy Superintendents of Police-btter-se seniority-Fixation of 
These matters relate to inter-se seniority between the direct recruit 
I;P.S. Otlicers and the promotee l.P.S. Otlicers from the rank of special 
grade Deputy Superintendents of Police in U.P. State Police Service. The 
D claim of the promotee officers for determining their seniority giving them 
the years of allotment from the respective dates of officiation was rejected 
by the State Government. Some of the promotees filed Writ· Petitions 
before this Court challenging the validity of Rules 3(3)(b) and 2(g) ofl.P.S. 
(Regulation of Seniority Rules) 1954 and Regulation 5 of the JPS (Appoint-
ment and Promotion) Regulations 1955 respectively. This Court directed 
E 
the Central Government to determine the year of allotment of each of the 
respondents in accordance with Rule 3(1) and also the question as to 
whether they were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation as 
Superintendents of Police under Rule 3(3)(b) and in the light of decisions 
of this Court interpreting analogous provisions. 
F 
. After hearing both the direct recruits and promotees and consider-
ing the material on record, the Central Government prepared a fresh 
seniority list. This was challenged before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal which directed the Central Government to prepare the seniority 
list afresh. This was challenged again. In accordance with the directions 
G of the Tribunal, the Central Government prepared a fresh seniority list 
which was successfully challenged again before the Tribunal. In another 
cases before it also the Tribunal directed the Central Government to 
prepare the seniority list afresh. 
H 
All .these appeals by special leave were tiled against the various 
180 
l. -
-
SYED RIZVI v. U.0.1. 
181 
orders of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition has been filed before this Court A 
challenging the inter-se seniority fixed by the Central Government. 
On the question (1) whether the promotees have been appointed to 
IPS according to rules (ii) whether their continuous officiation in cadre 
post would enure to their seniority entitling to the year of allotment from 
the dates of their initial promotions; (iii) whether their inclusion in the 
select list and the computation of seniority from the date are conditions 
of service; and (iv) whether the facts would justify to draw the presumption 
of deemed relaxation of relevant rules: 
B 
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petition as not main-
C 
tainable, this Court,. 
HELD : 1. Cadre Rules enjoins the ~tate Govt. that only a cadre 
officer should be appointed to a cadre post. Where the cadre officer is not 
available then, temporary appointments, by operation of Regulation 8 of , D 
the promotion· Regulations read with rule 9 of cadre rules, could be 
resorted to and appointments made by the State Govt. or its delegates to 
cope up with the administrative exigencies, of the select list officers in the 
order or .even among the select list otlicers dehors the order. When both 
cadre officers or select list officers are not available, then only non-select E 
list officers could be temporarily appointed. However, it is mandatory that 
the State Govt. should report forthwith to the Central Govt. together with 
the reasons for making such appointments. The condition precedent is, 
that the post shall not last for more than three months; if it exceeds three 
months then the 'prior concurrence' of the Central Govt., 'is mandatory'. 
If it lasts more than six months it should be with the consultation of the 
U.P.S.C., and the Central Govt. should post the UPSC with those facts and 
should implement the advice so tendered by the UPSC. The State Govt. 
should act according to the directions of the Central Govt. The compliance· 
of these steps are mandatory to make temporary appointment legitimate 
F 
and transitory arrangement a legal one. For violation thereof, the Central G 
Govt. is entitled to give directions to the State Govt to terminate the 
service of such temporary officer and the State Govt. should abide by such 
direction and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.