V.C. PERUMAL versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 20-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
V.C. PERUMAL 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 20, 1999 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
l.P.S. (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955: 
Regulations 5, 7 and 9-Scope and applicability of 
SeTVice law-lPS-Promotion-Preparation of list of suitable officers 
under Regulation 5-Number of State Police seTVice officers to be included 
in the list-Preparation of select list by State Govemment for the year 1977 
011 23rd November, 1976-Select Committee required to consider vacancies 
allficipated for the period November 1976 to November 1977-As per Regula-
tion 5 the Committee considered the number of anticipated vacancies as five 
and prepared the select list consisting of twice that number i.e. 10 per-
sons-List approved by UPSC-Name of appellant not figuring in the select 
list-In this list nobody junior to appellant was included-Appellant's conten-
tion that four carried over vacancies which remained unfilled out of 1976 
select list should also have been taken into account-Held not maintainable 
in view of the provisions of Regulations 5 and 7-Held anticipated vacancies 
were five, and preparation of a select list of ten was in accordance with 
Regulation 5-Proviso added to regulation 7 in 1989 Held inap-
plicabl~Appellant's name included in the select list of 1978 while his 
batchmate, who was throughout senior to him, was included in the list of 
1977-Held no prejudice was caused to the appellant by reason of the fact 
that his name is included for the first time only in the select list of 1978. 
Union of India v. M.G. Dighe & Ors., [1991) 4 SCC 551; Devender 
Narayan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1996) 11 SCC 342, distin· 
guished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4168 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.90 of the Central Ad-
H ministrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 692 of 1988. 
160 
. "'f-
' " 
--,. 
,...._ 
Jr 
... 
-t· 
V.C. PERUMALv. U.O.I. 
161 
V.A. Mohta, R. Mohan and R.A. Perumal for the appellant. 
A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & 
Co., for the State/Respondent. 
A.S. Nambiar, Y.P. Mahajan, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. Niranjana Singh 
A 
and S.N. Terdol for the Respondent. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant was directly recruited to the post of District Superin-
tendent of Police in the competitive examination conducted by the Tamil 
Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1965. He joined service on C 
5.7.1965. At the relevant time he was officiating as Superintendent of Police 
which is a post in the Indian Police Service. He was so officiating from 
26.6.1975 to 5.5.1978. The substantive post held by him at the material time 
was of Additional Superintendent of Police which is in the State Police 
Service. 
D 
The dispute in the present case relates to the year in which the name 
of the appellant should have been included in the select list for appoint-
ment as Superintendent of Police. The name of the appellant was included, 
for the first time,· in the select list prepared for the year 1978. According 
to the appellant, he should have been included in the select list which was E 
prepared in the year 1977. 
Under Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-
tions, 1955 it is provided as follows : 
"Regulation 5 : Preparation of a list of Suitable officers. 
(i) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at interval not ex-
ceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the State 
Police Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to 
F 
the service. The number of members of the State Police Service G 
included in the list shall not be 
more than twice the number of substantive vacancies an-
ticipated in the course of the period of twelve months, commencing 
from the date of preparation of the list in the posts available for 
them under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules; 
H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) lS.C.R. 
A 
OR 
·"i-
10 per cent of the senior posts shown against item 1 and 2 of 
the cadre schedule of each State of Group of States, 
whichever is greater. 
B 
... / 
Under Regulation, 5 the Select Committee is required to meet at an 
interval not exceeding one year. In ord<:!r to prepare the select list for the 
year 1977, the Select Committee met on 23rd November, 1976. Regulation 
5 provides that the number of candidates to be included in the select list 
c 
shall not exceed twice the number of substantive vacancies a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.