UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHRI HARISH CHANDER BHATIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 08-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
SHRI HARISH CHANDER BHATIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands 'DANI' Police 
Service Rules, 1971: Sections 4, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 29 Inter-se seniority 
of promotees and direct recruits-Reckoning of-Promotees regularly 
appointed and officiating for number of years- Held: Dates of officiating 
appointments of promotees to be treated as dates of their regular 
appointments and their seniority determined by interposing a direct recruit 
in between two promotees as per their respective Inter-se seniorities. 
Union of India, being a model employer has to eschew a stand which is 
unjustified and arbitarary. 
The dispute in this appeal relates to the inter-se seniority between 
promotees and direct recruits belonging to Delhi and Andaman and 
Nicobar Islands (DANI) Police Service. Appointments to the said 
service are normally made 1:1 qua promotees and direct rc::cruits, 
which could be varied in the exigency of public service. The 
respondents were appointed to the promotional post of Assistant 
Commissioner of Police after they had gone through the procedure of 
selection. 
The respondents (promotees) won their case for seniority before 
the Central Administrative Tribunal, against which the Union of India 
preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that despite the 
appointments being under sub-rule (1) of Rule 25, the respondents 
cannot be taken to have been appointed to the service and could not be 
G 
treated as permanent appointees; and that seniority could not be 
determined on the basis of continuous officiation as it cannot be said 
that the quota-rule has broken down. 
The respondents contended that seniority was required to be 
determined on the basis of length of service, despite there being quota 
H 
in appointment, which had broken down. 
394 
..
U.0.1. JAIN v. H. C. BHATIA 
395 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
A 
HELD: 1. An examination of rule 24 of the Delhi and Andaman 
and Nicobar Islands Police Service Rules, 1971 shows that the list 
pepared as required by that rule, has also to satisfy the requirements of 
provisions of sub-rules(3) and (4) of rules 14 and rule 15. This shows 
that the incumbents whose names find place in the list prepared as B 
contemplated by rule 24 are also those who have been duly selected and 
consultation with the Commission has also been made and the list 
prepared has been forwarded to the Central Government as well for its 
doing the needful. There is thus no difference in substance between the 
list prepared, as contemplated by rule 14 read with rule 15, and the one 
visualised by rule 24. So, there appears to be no justifiable reason to C 
regard rule 24 selectees as in any way inferior to rule 14 selectees. They 
stand almost at par. It is because of this that clauses (a) and (b) of sub-
rule (1) of rule 25 have virtually made no distinction between these two 
categories of incumbents. [401 E to G] 
2. The facts of the present case would show that though the D 
appointments were stated to be offidating, these continued for a very 
long period, which in the case ·of respondent No. 1 was of about 12 
years as he came to be appointed under rule 25 on 6.11.72 and was 
fixed permanently in the slot meant for promotees on 28.7.84. An 
officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting E 
appointment with no service benefits to be given. Any other view would 
very seriously prejudice such a service holder who, even after having 
rendered service equal to those of permanent appointees for a long 
period, and that too for proper functioning of the Service, would be 
denied the benefit of the same for no cogent reasons. Such a view is 
bound to have a demoralising effect in the Service as a whole. As the F 
appointments under rule 25 are also to duty posts, which may form 
part of the strength of Service because what has been stated in rule 
4(3), justice of the case and the need to preserve the efficient 
functioning of the Service would require to treat the appointments of 
the respondents as permanent, despite their having been first appointed G 
on officiating basis. [401H,402 A to C] 
3. A few scattered apointments against the quota rule cannot be 
taken to be break down of the principle of quota. Such appointments 
are at times made in exigency of service because of non-availability 

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