UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANR. ETC. versus RAHUL RASGOTRA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 01-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
RAHUL RASGOTRA AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 1, 1994 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Indian Police Service(Cadre) Rules, 1954: Rules 2(a), 3,4,5 and Ex-
planation. 'Cadre Officer'-lnterpretation of-Held includes an 'Exempted 
Probationer'-lnsertion of Explanation in Sub Rule 5(1)-£ffect of-Held 
C clarificatory in nature. 
Indian Police Service-Selection-Exemption from training with Of-
ficers selected in the same batch-Training with Officers selected in the next 
batch-Allocation of cadre with officers selected in the same batch and not 
with officers of next batch-Held valid--Purpose of Cadre allocation-Ex-
D plained. 
Indian Police Service(Recrnitment) Rules, 1954: Rules 2(aa), 4,6, and 
7-Scope of 
Indian Police Serice(Appointment by Competitive Examination) 
E Regulations, 1955-Regulation 7-Scope of 
Indian Police(Probation) Rules 1954. 
Rule 2(ee)-'Exempted Probationer'-Who is-Rule JO-Scope of 
F 
Indian Police Service(Regulation of seniority) Rules, 1988: Rules 3 and · 
4-Scope of 
Practice and Procedure. 
Government cases-Failure to produce record required by Cowt and 
G slipshod conduct of cases by Govt. deprecated-Need for taking urgent steps 
in this regard emphasised. 
Respondent No. 1 in tb,e first of the two appeals, selected for the 
Indian Police Service in the examination held in 1988 and a probationer 
of 1989 batch, was granted exemption from joining training with other 
H probationers of 1989 batch since he wanted to appear in the next examina-
508 
·-+ 
-
U.0.1. v. RAHUL RASG01RA 
509 
tion foF improving his prospects. However, he did not succeed and· he A 
joined the training in 1990 as an exempted probationer of 1989 batch along 
with probationers of 1990 batch. In terms of Rule 5 of the Indian Police 
Service(Cadre) Rules, 1954, cadre allocation was made to him in the joint 
cadre of States of Manipur and Tripura as probationer of 1989 batch. 
The other respondent in the connected appeal, selected for Indian B 
Police Service in 1989 examination and a probationer of 1990 batch also 
sought permission to appear in the next examination but later withdrew 
his request and joined the training along with probationers of 1990 batch 
and was allotted Orissa Cadre as a probationer of 1990 batch. 
Both the respondents filed applications before the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal challenging their cadre allotment. In the meantime 
an explanation was added to Rule S, giving it retrospective effect from 
1.1.1988 which provided that for the purposes of Rule 5 'Cadre Officer' 
includes a person allotted to Indian Police Service and granted extension 
c 
of time to join the service. 
D 
The Tribunal allowed their claim but held that retrospective amend-
ment of Rule 5 inserting explanation therein was inapplicable to the case 
of Respondents. 
Against the decision of Tribunal, Union of India preferred appeals E 
in this Court. 
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that cadre allocation 
of an officer ean be made only when he has become a member of the IPS 
by appointment to the service which happens when he joins the training 
on his appointment and not earlier; that one of the respondents having 
joined the training in 1990, his cadre allocation in 1989 was made when he 
was not a 'Cadre Officer', and fresh cadre allocation should be made in 
his case along with the officers of the 1990 batch. 
F 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of the Tribunal, G 
this Court 
HELD: The claim made by the respondents is unten~ble. The object 
and purpose of cadre allocation to the selected candidate who had been 
alloted to a particular Service is merely to indicate the State Cadre to 
which he would belong in the service and it is not necessary for him to H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPOrt.TS 
(1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
actually join the training. The eumber of total vacancies in the service and 
those available in the State Cadres for a particular batch being known and 
so also the total number of candidates selected at the competitive examina· 
tion with their comparative position in order of merit, nothing mc1re is 
needed to perform the exercise of cadre allocation at that stage and no 
B 
useful purpose is served by postponing t!J.ilt exercise to a later date. There 
is thus no reason why the cadre allocation is required to be deferred till a 
candidate has joined the training after being allotted the particular service 
on the ba

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