AMRIK SINGH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. April 11, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND 0. ClIINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] Seniority, clailn for-Indian Police Service Officers-Counting officiating ~<;ervice i11 a Cadre pcJt of a junior officer in the Select List while lzis senior in the list was officiating in another ex-cadre post for the purposes of fixing year of allotment-Whether illegal-Whether continuation of a non-cadre officer in a cadre post beyond 3 months by the State Government without a report to the Central Govern1nent and the Central Governnzent non reporting after six months to U.P.S.C. is illegal-Indian Police Service Rules RPgulation of Seniority Rules 1954 r/w Regulation 7-9 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules 1954-All India Services (Conditions of Sen•icr.. Residuary matters) Rules, 1960.
One Sri Ahluwalia, 4th respondent herein became a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Hirnachal Pradesh (which was then a Union Territory) .bY the end of 1956. In 1962, the Central Government constituted a common police service for the Union Territory of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh called the Delhi and l-Iin1acha1. Pradesh Police Service, and later, in 1964, respondent No. 4 was absorbed into that service on a regular basis.
The usucl avenue of promotion for a Deputy Superintendent of Police is the post of· Superin- tendent of Police, but Superintendents of Police are borne on the cadre of the Indian Police Service and the exercise which results in the inclusion in the Indian Police Sen'icc is governed by the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. 1955 framed under section 3(4) of the All India Sefvices Act, 1951. The first step is to prepare a select list from among
eligible officers of the State concerned, in the present case the lJnion Terri- tories of Delhi and Himac-hal Pradesh. Sometimes, it happens that although the post of a Superin~endent of Police is a cadre po.st, if no hands are readily available for being posted from the I.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Select List is promoted provisionally subject to certain formalities. 'The 4th respondent (Ahluwalia) was brought into the Select 'list in 1965 and later appointed SUperintendent of Police in October 1965 and he worked. as Superintendent of Police in one place or the other, until December 25, 1967, when he \Vent on Earned Leave from 26-12-67 to 25-3-68 and, even thereafter i.e. from 26-3-68 onwards, he con~inued as Superintendent of Police right down to January 1971, when on January 30, 1971, he was appointed to the I.P.S. and confirmed as such. The year of a1lotn1ent was fixed as 1965. For ascer- tainin~ the period of allotment under rule 3 (3) (b) of
the Regulation of Seniority Rules. i954, the period of his officiating service in the cadre post from 1-8-68 to 12-10-69 was not' taken into account under Regulations 7 to 9 of the Tnd:an Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955,
in view of the fact that one Mr. Sahney who was senior to him in the Select I.ist happened to be posted in an ex-cadre post. The 4th respondent who had a ca1;e that the law 2nd justice «?f his case entitled him to 1961 as year of ;allotment, challenged the order of the Central Government allotting him the year 1965.
The High Court considered the matter with reference to the relevant rules and allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the Union of India to refix his seniority after assigning him the year of allotment as 1961. The Central Government reconsidered the matter even earlier, and, by its order dated 27-7-1979, refued the seniority of the 4th respondent by assigning 1961 as his year of allotment. Aggrieved by this development the appellants have come up in appeal.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court HEW : I. The Officer Sri Ahluwalia was rightly assigned 1961 as the year oil allotment. There was continuous officiation by him in a cadre post
right down to 1971. There was no fault on his part. There was no illegality. There was no outwitting at the instance of Ahlu\valia, of the claims of any other candidate. [494H, 495A]
2. The real line of distinction between a State and the Union of India might well be blurred a little when it is a Union Territory. Moreover, there is the circumstance that the entire. Service was in the melting pot for a few years because the All India Services were being switched from Himachal Pradesh and Delhi into all the Union Territories. Even more; since1 uncertainty prevailed while the question of a part of Punjab being tacked on to Himachal Pradesh came to engage the Administration. Amidstl these fluctuating factors, the sole- cism committed by the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh in not haviog reported to the Central Government about continuing Ahluwalia, beyond 3 months, in a cadre post, wae ai venial sin for which the candidate was free from blame. [495CE]
3. The argument, based on Sahney, a senior to Ahluwalia, being in a ~ cadre post and therefore, Ahluwalia's service during that period not being regular, also cannot be exa•ggerated out of proportion. Tci:hnical1y, the C.B.I. posts are ex-cadre posts, but it is a Central
Government Department and nothing is suggested that there was something suspicious in Sahney being kept in the C.B.I. to facilitate AhluwaJia's continuance in Cadre post. Everything in this cooe is straightforward and, therefore, if there was any admin.istrati\·e ' ]apse, Ahluwalia could not bei victimized.
Indeed, an unwitting hanlshlp inflicted on a member of the Service under such circumstances can 00 relieved by exercise of the residuary power of Central Government under Rulei 3 of
the All India &rvices (Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960. After full and second consideration, the Central Government passed Annexure 'Y' dated 1-12-71Y whereby Ahluwalia was given the benefit of 1961 as the year of the allotment. The period of
officiation of Ahluwalia betwe'en 1-8-1968 ood 19-10-1969 was approved by the central Government after con- sultation with the U.P.S.C. This retrospectively cured the infirmity that
existed in Ahluwalia's officiationi beyond 3 months or 6 months·, in a: cadre post without consultartion with the· U.P.S.C. The contravention of Regulation 8 was, thus, relieved against.
[495E-H, 497F-G] 4. In substance the exercise prescribed by Rule 9 of the India Police Ser- vice (Cadre) Rules, 1954 is that, when the: cadre post is vacant and no Cadre Officer is available, a non-cadre officer may fill the vacancy for a
period beyond three months if the State Government reports to the Central Govern- ment the re0sons therefor and it is not !ordered to be termi1nated. The C.entral j _ . ..__ AMRIK HNGH V. UNION
Gove1nment may permit a non-cadre officer to fill a Cadre post for a, p~riod. exceeding six months provided it reports the full facts to the U.P.S.C. and acts responsibly in the light of the advicer of the Commission. In the present case, no such report by the State Governn1ent to the Cenrtal Government was sent, no consultation by the Central Government with the Commission was done. Bypassing the Public Service Commission bespeaks prima facie impropriety, but it is not destructive of the officiatiori of AhluwaUa in the special conspectus. of facts present here.
For one thing, Ahluwalia has nothing to do with the error; for another, no senior of Ahluwalia suffered, thirdly, the Centrnl Gov- ernment, in exercise of its power to relax the Rules, in good faith and, indeed in equity, did relieve the officer against this violatio_n. [498A-EJ
5. Under Rule 3 (iii) (b) of the Indian Police Service Regulation of Senio· rity Rules, 1954 continuous officiation is the decisive factor. Assuming that what i<i needed is regular officiation and not physical officiation, it i'3 perfectly open for the Central Governn1ent to relax any irre,gularity by relaxing any particular rule or regulation. That power under All Jndia Services (Condi-
tions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules 1960, to relax is not arbitrary because the Rule contains guidelines. Government 1nust be satisfied, not sub .. jectively but objectively, that any rule or regulation affecting the conditions of service of a member of the All India Services causes undue hardship,. then
the iniquitous consequence thereof may be reli~ved against by relaxation of ih~ concerned Rule or Regulation; There must be undue hardship and, furth.:-r the relaxation must promote the dealing with the case "in a! just and ·equitable manner". These are perfectly sensible guidelines. What is
more, tlicrc is implicit in the Rule, the compliance with natural justice so that nobody may be adversely affected even by administrative action \Vitbout a hearing. Thefe is nothing unreasonable, capricious or deprivatory of the rights of anyone in this residuary power vested in the Central Government.
Indeed, the presefit case is an excel1ant illustration of the proper exercise of the power. [498E-H, 499A] CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. of 1979. Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 23-3-1979 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 398 of 1976. R. K. Garg, and B. P. Singh for the Appellants. V. M. Tarkunde and P. P. Juneja for the Respondent No. 4.
M. M. Abdul Khader and Miss A. Subhashini for the Union of India. Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent No. 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, KRISHNA IYER, J.-Competitive claims to seniority, dependent on the year of allotment in the Indian Police Service, fall for consideration in this appeal by special leave.
We have expedited the hearing of II the case since keeping officers in an unsettled state may be a factor which impairs their efficiency. c One Shri Ahluwalia, a senior member of the Indian Police Service, sought to quash the decision of the Union of India dated 26-6-1976, whereby his year of allotment was fixed as 1965. According to his case, the correct year of allotment should have been 1961. If his · plea were granted, the present appellants would be affected by being made junior to him.
The rival contentions revolve round a few facts, which we will set out, and a few rules framed under the All India Services Act, 1951, which we will construe. First a rush through the
relevant calendar of dates. Concerned, as we are, with the year of allotment of Shri Ahluwalia (respomlent No. 4), let us focus on the chronology of events wHh special reference to him. If his claim were untenable, the appeal must be allowed and vice-versa.
The 4th respandent (Ahluwalia) became a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Himachal Pradesh (which was then a Union Territory) by the end of 1956. In 1962, the Central Government constituted a
common police service for the Union Territory of Delhi and Himacha] Praded1 called the Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Police Service; and later, in 1964, respondent No. 4 was absorbed into that service on a regular basis.
The usual avenue of promotion for a Deputy Superin- tendent of Police is the post of Superintendent of Police, but Superi- tendents of Police are borne on the cadre of the Indian Police Service and the exercise which results in the inclusion in the Indian Police Service is governed by the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 framed under Sec. 3(4) of the All India Services Act, 1951. The first step is to prepare a Select List from among eligible officers of the State concerned, in the present case, the Union Territories of. Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. Some-
times, it happens that although the post of a Superintendent of Police is a cadre post, if no hands are readily available for being posted from the LP .S. Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Select List is
promoted provisionally subject to certain fornialities which we will presently consider. The 4th respondent (Ahluwalia) was brought into the Select List in 1965 and later appointed Superintendent of Police in October, 1965 and he worked as Superintendent of Police in one place or other, until December, 1967, and, even thereafter, he continued as Superintendent of Police right down to January when on January 30, 1971, he was appointed to the I.P.S. and confirm- ed as such.
The year of allotment was fixed as 1965 bnt the 4th res- pandent had a case that the law and justice of the case entitled him to 196 l as year of allotment. So he challenged the Order of the
Central Government allotting 'him the year 1965. The High Court considered the matter with reference to the relevant rules and came to the conclusion that there was merit in the 4th respondent's cont en- AMRIK SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.)
tion. (He was the petitioner before the High Court). The learned Judges wound up thus : "It is, therefore, evident that the period of officiation of the peti- tioner during 1-8-1968 to 12-10-1969 could not be considered to be· invalid or irreg\llar on any such ground.
We, therefore, conclude that the Government of Ind.iia wrongly decided that the officiation of the petitioner between the period 1-1-1%8 and 12-1-1971 or during the period 1-8-1968 to 12-10-69 could not be considered valid officiation.
Rather he was continuously holding a cadre post throughout this period, and the benefit regarding seniority wiU have to be given for the entire period. The decision being wrong and invalid under the very Rules and Regulations applied by the Government, was subsequently set right by them under Anne- xure-Y.
The upshort of all that we have stated above is that the pelltioner shall be given the benefit of his continuous officiation against a senior post of the entire period from 11-11-1965 to the date of his appoint- ment in the Indian Police Service his year of allotment shall be deter- mined under Rule 3(3) (b) of the Seniority Rules keeping in view that he started his continuous officiation from 11-11-1965. In conse- quence, Annexure-N is quashed to the extent the said Annexure held a view contrary to our decision. It is declared that the petitioner continued and should be deemed to have continued to officiate on ii senior duty post of the Indian Police Service with effect from 11-11-65 without any break up to his confirmation in the Indian Police Service. The petitioner's seniority shall be determined accordingly and all con- sequential benefits of seniority shall be granted to him by the respon- dents Nos. 1 and 2.
The respondent No. 1 shall determine the senio- rity of the Petitioner in accordance with our observations made above within three months". The Central Government reconsidered the matter
even earlier, and, by its Order dated 27-7-1979, refixed the seniority of the 4th respondent by assigning 1961 as his year of allotment. Aggrieved by this development, the appellants have come to this court and con- tested the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court.
A few more facts about the career of the 4th respondent and the II developments in the Indian Police service may be natrated before we set out and consider Rules and Regulations and their implications. c
The 4th respondent Ahlnwalia, as stated earlier, was Superintendent of Police from 1965 to 1967, followed by a short perrod of earned leave, which ended on 25-3-68. From March 26, 1968 he again continned as Superintendent of Police. Meanwhile, an event beyond the control of the parties took place which has a bearing on the ultimate view we take, although only indirectly. On November 1, 1966, the re-organi- sation of the Punjab State took place which resulted in some areas of Punjab being transferred to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, certain officers, including one Shri P. C. Sahney and Shri K. S. Dhaliwal, were brought over from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. Admittedly, both these officers, Sahney and Dhaliwal, were senior to Ahluwalia, but a key circumstance which, in the submission of the appel- lants is decisive in their favour deserves mention. It is this Shri Sahney, a senior of Ahluwalia, was holding an Ex-cadre post of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. under the Ministry of Home Affairs between 7-12-1964 and 6-10-1969.
The Joint Select List of the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Police Service, prepared on 29-4-1967, included the names of Ahluwalia, Sahney and Dhaliwal, the last two being above Ahluwalia.
On January 1, 1968, the Central Government created single cadre for all the Union Territories in India and, as a follow-up action, prepared a common Select List for the IPS Cadre on 13-1-1971. Ahluwalia was in the Select List of the Union Territories Cadre so pre- pared.
The story of the Cadre continued in the sense that on 25-1-1971, when Himachal Pradesh acquired full-fledged State-hood, Ahluwalia was allocated, alongwith others, to that State. The Hima- chal Pradesh State came to have its own Cadre of I.P.S. Officers, in which Ahluwalia became a Member. Thereafter, the question was mooted before Government as to what should be the year of allotment for the 4th respondent (Ahluwalia).
Two factors having relevancy to the determination of the issue be- fore us, were highlighted by Shri R. K. Garg, appearing for the appel- lant. He stated that so long as Shri Sahney was holding an ex-cadre post and was senior to Ahluwalia, the officiation of the latter was not legal and regular and therefore had to be ignored for the purpose of continuity of officiating service. This break was material in fixing the year of allotment. Secondly, he urged that the continuation of a non- cadre officer in a Cadre post beyond 3 months required the State con- cerned to report to the Central Government this fact and the Central Government in return had to consult and go by the opinion of the Union Pnblic Service Commission. In the present case, Ahluwalia bad co~tinued in the Cadre post of Superintendent ·of Police, ·without ).-..
.._ AMRIK SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) this necessary exercise by the State and the Central Government and without the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. Thus, the two reasons, briefly, s.tated above, were lethal to the claims of Ahluwalia and he was bound to be pushed to the year 1965 and could not claim the earlier year of allotment of 1961 awarded to him by the Central Government and the High Court. If the contention put forward by Shri Garg were sound, the conclusion would
be inevitable and the appeal must inescapably be allowed. Thus we are thrown back to an examination of the rele- vant rules in their application to the facts present in this case. Of
course, before launching on that essay, we must also mention that the Central Government has a residuary power, in cases of equity and justice. to exempt an officer from the rigour of any rule or re- gulation.
The Rules may now be reproduced before scanning the submis- sions of either side. It may be treated as common case that not only was Sahney (now retired) senior to Ahluwalia but he wa~ hold- ing an ex-cadre post during the period 1-8-1968 to 12-10-1969. If this period were to be excluded from Ahluwalia's officiation he must fail. It is also beyond dispute that there was no consultation with the U.P.S.C. for the period of officiation beyond 6 months of Shri Ahluwalia in a cadre post. The Union of India had, on one stage, agreed tentatively with Ahluwalia's case but changed its mind and came to the conclusion that there was a break in service between 1-8-1968 and 12-10-1969 for Ahluwalia and, therefore, the benefit of officiation during that period could not be given in fixing the year of allotment under Rule 3 ( 3) (b) of the Regnlation
of seniority Rules, 1954. Again Government veered round to the view that 1961 was the correct year of allotment. Now the Statntory Provisions: ''7. Select List (1) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by
the committee alongwith the other documents rec ceived from the State Government and, unless it considers any change necessary, approve the list. (2) (3) ……………….. The list as finally approved by the Commission shall
form the Select List of the members of the State Police Service." c p c II (1980] 3 S.C.R. Under this Rule a Select List was prepared where Ahluwalia was ap- pointed against a Cadre post with effect from 11-11-1965.
Regula- tion 8 may also be read : "8. Appointments to Cadre post from Select List Appointments of members of the State Police Service from the Select List to posts borne on the State Cadre on the joint Cadre of a group of States, as the case may be, shall be made in accordance with the provisions of rule 9 of the
Cadre Rules. In making such appointments, the State Government shall follow the order in which the names of such officers appear in the Select List. From this, it i~ clear, Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules has governing force and so we must excerpt Rule 9 also :
"9. Temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts (I) A cadre post in a state may be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer if the State Government is satisfied.
(a) that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months, or (b) that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. (2) where in any state, a person other than a cadre offi-
cer is appointed to a cadre post for a period exceed-. ing three months the State government shall forthwith report the fact to the Central Government together with the reasons for making the appointment.
(3) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or other- wise, the Central Government may direct that the State Government shall terminate the appointment of such person and appoint thereto a cadre officer
and where any direction is so issued, the state Go- vernment shall accordingly give effect thereto. ( 4) Where a cadre post is likely to be filled by 11 person who is not a cadre officer for a PERIOD exceeding
..;_ .. AMRIK SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.)· six months, the Central Government shall report the full facts to the Union Public Service Commission with the REASONS for holding that no suitable offi-
cer is available for filling the post and may in the light of the advice given by the Union Public Service Commission give sui1able directions to the State Gov- ernment concerned.,,
The critical rule regarding the assignment of year of allotment is Rule 3, which we may now reproduce; "3. Assignment of year of allotment : (1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained
in this rule. (2) (3) The. year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service after the commencement of these rules, shall be: (a) (b) Where the Officer is appointed to the Service by
Promotion in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rec- c ruitment Rules, the year of allotment of the Juniormost among the officers recruited to the service in accordance with Rule 7 of these Rules
who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commence- ment of such officiati'On by the former; Explnnation : L In respect of an officer appointed to the
Service by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, the period of his continuous officiation in a senior post shall, for the purpose of determi- nation of his seniority, count only from the date of the in- clusion of his name in tl1e Select List, or from the date of his officiating appointment to such senior post whichever is later.
Provided that where the name of a State Police Service Officer was included in the Select List in force im- mediately before the reorganisation of a State and is also in- c eluded in the first Select List prepared subsequent to the date of snch reorganisation, the name of such officer shall be
deemed to have been continuonsly in the Select List with effect from the date of inclusion in the first mentioned Select List. Explanation 4 : An officer appointed to the Service in
accordance with sub-rule (i) of rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules shall be treated as having officiated in a senior post during any period of appointment to a non-cadre post if the State Government has certified within three months of his
appointment to the non-cadre post that he would have so officiated but for his appointment, for a period not exceeding one year, and, with the approval of the Central Government, for a further period not exceeding two years, to a non-cadre post under a State Government or the Central Government
in a time-scale identical to the time-scale in a senivr post. E There is one more Rule which can play a heroic role in a crisis bet- ween equity and legalism. That is, contained in Rule 3 of the All
India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules 1960 : II "3. Power to relax rules and regulations in certain cases:- Where the Central Government is satisfied that the opera-
tion of:- (i) any rule made or deemed to have been made under the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951), or (ii) any regulation made under any such rule, regubting the conditions of service of persons appointed to an
All India Service causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule or regulation, as the case may be, to such extent and subject to such
exceptions and conditions as may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.'' ._ __ _ j. . "" AMRIK SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) Ia the perspective of tl1e Act and Rules, we may proceed to ana- lyse the submissions and assess their worth.
We are not disposed to launch on a prolix investigation or delve into minute details be<;ause we are impressed with the justice of the conclusion reached by the High Court and the Central Government in giving to Ahluwalia 1961 as the year of his allotment. It is indubitable that, as a fact, there was continuous officiation by him in a cadre post right down to 1971. There was no fault on his part. There was no illegality so far as we can gather.
There was no outwitting at the instance of Ahluwalia, of the claims of any other candidate. The two technical infirmities power- fully pressed, with characteristic vigour, by Shri R. K. Garg do not in the least detract from the effective officiation as
Superintendent of Police by Shri Ahluwalia. Let us assume for a moment that the State Government had not reported to the Central Government and that the consultation with the Union Public Service Commission had not been
made by the Central Government. Let us further assume that, in a strict view, that was needed. Even so, the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi should have formally told the Home Ministry about the officia- tion beyond three months by Ahluwalia in a cadre post. This was not done. The real line of distinction between a State and the Union of India might well be blurred a little when it is a Union Territory. Moreover, there is the circumstance that the entire Service was in
the melting pot for a few years because the All India Services were being switched from Himachal Pradesh and Delhi into all the Union Territories. Even more; since uncertainty prevailed while the question of a part of Punjab being tacked on to Himachal Pradesh came to engage the Administration.
Amidst these fluctuating factors, the solecism committed by the Union erritory of Himachal Pradesh in not having reported to the Central Government about continuing Ahlu- walia, \Jfyond
3 months, in a cadre post, was a venial sin for which the candidate was free from blame. Secondly, the argument, based on Sahney, a senior to Ahluwalia, being in a ex-cadre post and therefore, Ahluwalia's service during that period not being regular, also cannot be exaggerated out of
proportion.· Technically, the CB.I. posts are ex-cadre posts, but it is a Central Government Depart- ment and nothing is suggested that there was something suspicious in Sahney being kept in the CB.I. to facilitate Ah:uwalia's continuance in a Cadre post.
Everything in this case is straight-forward and, therefore, if there was any administrative lapse, Ahluwalia could not be victimized. Indeed, an unwitting hardship inflicted on a membet
of the Service under such circumstances can be relieved against by . exercise of the residuary power of Central Government under Rule 3 c [1980] 3 S.C.R, extracted above. They passed the Order
(Annexure X) which we reproduce: c "Annexure-'X' No. 24116/71-Pers. II (IPS) Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya MEMORANDUM S/Shri P. C. Sahney, K. S. Dhaliwal and V. K. Ahluwalia
were appointed the Indian Police Service by Promotion from the State Po'.ice Service o'n 30th January, 1971 and allocated to the Himachal Pradesh Cadre of Service. 2. Prior to their appointment to the Indian Police Service, these officers were holding the following posts.
In accordance with Regulation 8 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the Select List officers are to be appointed to the Cadre Post in the order in which their names appear in the Select List As such in cases where a
senior select list officer was 'not holding a cadre post, the offi- ciation in a. cadre post of a junior officer in the Select List was not approved by the Central Government because the
appointment of Junior Select List officer to a cadre post was violative of the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Promotion Regulations. Accordingly, it was decided that the rules may be relaxed
to count the period of officiation against ex-cadre posts so as to give benefit of the service rendered by the junior officers in the cadre post for the purpose of seniority. Applying the ratio of the case of U. T. Cadre, the Government of India has
come to the conclusion that the appointment of Shri P. C. Sahney in the C. B. I. on depntatio'n basis from 7-12-1964 to 6-10-1969 was made by the Central Government in public interest since Shri Sahney belonged to the U. T. Cadre which was managed by the Central Government. It can, there-
fore, be said that the question of misuse of provisions of —t AMRIK SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) rules a"nd regulations by the State Government in this case does not arise. The certificates that but for his appointment to ex-cadre post in the C.B.I., Shri Sahney would have conti- nued against a cadre post, was to be issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the fault, if any, lies with the Central Government and nat with any State Government. It has,
therefore, been tentatively decided to count the ex-cadre offi- ciations of Shri P. C. Sahney from 7-12-1964 to 6-10-1969 for the purpose of seniority in relaxation of the provisions of the l.P.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
In view of the counting of ex-cadre officiation of Shri P. C. Sahney for the period 7-12-64 to 6-10-1969, the Cadre officiation of S/Shri K. S. Dhaliwal and V. K. Ahluwalia prior to 13-10-1969 will not be violative of the provisions of regulation 8 of J.P.S. (Appointment by Promotional Regu-
lations, 1955). It is, therefore, prepared to count the entire cadre officiation of S/Shri K. S. Dhaliwal and V. K. Ahluwalia for the purpose of their seniority. Accordingly, the crucial date in respect of S/Shri K. S. Dhaliwal ano
V. K. Ahluwalia shall be 28-3-1965 and 11-11-1965 respec- tively. Sd/- A. J ayaraman Under Secretary to the Government of India. After full and second consideratian, the Central Government
passed Annexure 'Y' dated 1-12-1978, whereby Ahluwalia was given c the be"nefit of 1961 as the year of the allotment. The period of officiation of Ah'.uwalia between 1-8-1968 and 19-10-1969
was approved by the Central Government after consultation with the U.P.S.C. This retrospectively cured the infirmity that existed in Ahluwalia's officiation, beyond 3 months or 6 months, in a cadre post without consultation with the U.P.S.C. The contravention of Regula- tion 8 was, thns, relieved against.
c (1980] 3 S.C.R •. Regulation 7, earlier reproduced, has reference to the Select Llst, reeeived from the State, being approved by the Commission. Ahluwalia was in this list and by virtue of that inclusion in the Select List, was posted agaiµst a Cadre post with effect from 11-11-1965. Regulation 8 authorises such appointment of the members of the State Police Service.
However, Rule 9 of the I'ndian Police Service (Cadre) Rules 1954 has a crucial impact in regard to temporary appointments of non-cadre officers to Cadre posts. We have earlier extracted the
Rule, but in snbstance, the exercise prescribed by the Rule is that, when the Cadre post is vacant and no Cadre Officer is available. A non-cadre officer may fill the vacancy for a period beyond three
months if the State Government reports to the Central Government the reasons therefor and it is not ordered to be terminated. The Central Government may permit a non-Cadre Officer to fill a Cadre post for a period exceeding six months provided it reports the full facts to the U.P.S.C. and acts responsibly in the light of the advice of the Commission.
I'n the present case, no such report by the State Government to the Central Government was sent, no consnltation by the Central Government with the Commission was done. We are . agreed that by-passing the Public Service Commission bespeaks prima facie impropriety, but we are not inclined to consider this grievance as destructive of the officiation of Ahluwalia in the special conspectus of facts present here. For one thing, Ahluwalia has nothing to do with the error; for another, no senior of Ahluwalia suffered, thirdly, the Central Government, in exercise of its power to relax the Rl!les, in good faith and, i'ndeed in equity, did relieve the officer against this violation.
That power to relax exists is admitted, although a feeble ' challenge to its vires was made in passing. When we consider the year of allotment what looms large is Rule 3 (iii) (b). Continuous officia- tion is the decisive factor.
Assuming that what is needed is regular officiation and not physical officiation, it is perfectly open for the Central Government to relax any irregularity by relaxing any parti- cular rule or regulation.
We have earlier indicated the scope of this power and reproduced the Rule itself. It is not arbitrary because the Rule contains guidelines. Government must be satisfied,· not subjectively but objectively, that any rule or regulation affecting tho conditions of service of a member of the All India Service cause,; undue hardship, then the inequitous consequence thereof may be relieved against by relaxation of the concerned Ru:e or Regulation; There must be undue hardthip and, further the relaxation must pro- mote the dealing with the case "in a just and equitable manner". These are perfectly sensible guidelines.
What is more, there is implicit i'n the Rule, the compliance with natural justice so that nobody may be ,_ )…_ .. k f AMRIK SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) adversely affected even by administrative action without hearing. We lit
are unable to see anything unreasonable, capricious or depfivatory of the fights of anyone in this residuary p0wer vested ih the Central Government. Indeed, the present case is an excellent illustration oi
the proper exercise of the power. We are therefore, satisfied that the Central Government was right in invoking its power to relax and regularize the spell of officiation, which was impugned as irregular a or illegal.
The consequence inevitably follows that the officer Ahluwalia was rightly assigned 1961 as the year of allotment. The appeal fails and is dismissed. S.R. Appeal dismissed. 12 -289SCI/80