UNION OF INDIA versus S.S. UPPAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 09-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
S.S. UPPAL AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.] 
Service Larv : 
Indian Ad1ninistrative Servfr;e ( Recruit1nent) Rules, 1954; Indian Admin-
istrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 (as amended by Notifi-
cation dated 3.2.1989). 
R.8(2)/Rules 2, 3 (3) (iii)--Appointment to 1AS against quota of non-
State Civil Service Officers-Fixation of seniority--Year of allotnient--Held, 
year of allotment and seniority of an officer appointed to !AS to be determined 
according to seniority rules applicable on date of appointment to the 
service-Fixation of seniority in JAS.folloivs appointment to Servici--Date of 
occurrence of vacancy has to relevance for purpose of fixation of seniority--ll,1ere 
inclusion of name in panel does not confer on candidate any right of appoint-
ment. 
E 
Respondent no.1, an officer in the Commerce and Industry Depart-
F 
G 
ment of State of Madhya Pradesh, was considered suitable for absorption 
in the Indian Administrative Service cadre against the quota of non-State 
Civil Service Officers, under Rule 8(2) of the Indian Administrative 
Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. A penal of four officers was prepared 
in which the name of respondent no. 1 was placed at serial no. 4 for 
appointment against the vacancy arising on 1.2.1989. But the vacancy was 
not filled up on the said date and the respondent was appointed against 
the said vacancy in the Indian Administrative Service on 15.2.1989. 
Meanwhile on 3.2.1989 the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service 
(Regulation and Seniority) Rules were amended. 
The respondent filed an application before the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal challenging Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules 1989 as ultra 
vires articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and claimed his seniority from 
the date of vacancy i.e. l.2.1989 in accordance with the rules in force on 
that date. The Tribunal allowed the application holding that the vacancy 
H in the promotional post occurring prior to the amendment had to be filled 
230 
•> 
U.0.1. "· S.S. UPPAL 
231 
up in accordance \Vith the unamended rules, and seniority was to be A 
determined in accordance \Vith the rules prevalent on the date the 
promotion became due. It directed the Union of India to reassign the year 
of allotment to the respondent in accordance with 1987 Rules. 
In the present appeal tiled by the Union of India, it was contended 
for the appellant that a Government servant is governed by the rules in 
force at the time of his appointment in the service and not by those in force 
prior to his appointment, and since the respondent was appointed on 
15.2.1989, his seniority was determined taking into consideration the 
revised formula which came into force on 3.2.1989. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Seniority of an officer appointed to the Indian Admin-
istrative service is determined according to the seniority rules applicable 
B 
c 
on the date of appointment to the Service. Fixation of seniority in the 
Indian Administrative Service is done only after an officer is appointed D 
to the Service. The year of allotment in the IAS will have to be determined 
according to the provisions of seniority rules in force at the time of 
appointment of the officer. [237-H, 236-A] 
1.2. Appointment to IAS after inclusion of the name of the candidate 
in the select list is not automatic. Mere inclusion of the name in the panel 
E 
does not confer any right of appointment. The State Government as well 
as the officer concerned have to go through certain formalities before the 
actual appointment is made. The date of occurrence of vacancy has really 
no relevance for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the IAS. Weightage 
in seniority cannot be given retrospective effect unless it was specifically 
provided in the rules in force at the material time. The Central Govern-
F 
ment is competent to amend the seniority rules from .time to time keeping 
in view the exigencies of administration. [236-C-B] 
1.3. The question of seniority of respondent no.1 has to be determined 
by the rules in force on the date of his appointment to the Indian Adminis-
trative Service. After the vacancy had arisen on 1.2.1989, a proposal of 
appointment ofrespondent no. 1 to IAS from the State Government was put 
up on 14.2.1989. Thereupon he was promoted and thns actually inducted 
into IAS on 15.2.1989. The revised seniority rules that came into force on 

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