http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: HARJEET SINGH ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/04/1980

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1275            1980 SCR  (3) 459  1980 SCC  (3) 205  CITATOR INFO :  F          1986 SC 348  (15)  R          1988 SC 535  (2,8)  RF         1989 SC1972  (11)

ACT:      Indian Police  Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules- Rule 3(3)(b)- Validity of      Indian Police  Service  (Fixation  of  Cadre  Strength) Regulations,  1955-Regulations  7  to  9-Year  of  allotment service in  non-cadre posts  not considered  -Whether such a service would  constitute a  break for  fixing the  year  of allotment-Whether over-utilisation of deputation and Central reserve quota  relevant for  fixing the  year of  allotment, when once  the officer  has continuously for fixing the year of  allotment,   when  once  the  officer  has  continuously officiated in  a Senior Post-Whether offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.      Indian Police  Service  (Fixation  of  Cadre  Strength) Regulations-Regulations 7  to 9  of 1955  and Indian  Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, Rule 4(1), Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      On selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission B. R.  Kapur  (appellant  in  CA  2413/78)  and  Harjeet  Singh (Appellant in  CA 2526/77)  were directly recruited in 1951, as Deputy  Superintendents of  Police in  the Punjab  Police Service. B.  R. Kapur  was senior to Harjeet Singh as Deputy Superintendent  of  Police.  In  1960,  both  of  them  were included in  the Select  List prepared under Regulation 7 of the  Indian   Police  Service,  (Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulations, 1955.  On November  24, 1960,  B. R.  Kapur was appointed as  Assistant Inspector  General of  Police  which post was  a cadre  post. In  May 1961  he was appointed to a non-cadre post as Director of Sports and Youth Programme and Deputy Secretary  to Government,  Sports Department. He held this post  upto November  18, 1962,  and thereafter  he  was appointed as  Additional Controller  of Stores, Punjab which was also  a non-cadre post. He continued to hold the post of Additional Controller  of Stores  till 1965,  from July  19, 1965 he  was Commandant, 40th Battalion PAP, J & K which was a cadre  post. He  held the  post till July 11, 1966 when he took over  as Commandant  of  25th  Battalion  PAP.  On  the reorganisation of  the State  of Punjab, he was appointed as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

Assistant General  of Police,  State of Punjab from November 1, 1966. Thereafter he continuously held cadre posts and was finally appointed  to the  Indian Police Service with effect from September  3, 1969. Shri Harjeet Singh was appointed to officiate as  Superintendent of Police in December 1960. The post was  a cadre  post. He  continued to  hold a cadre post till he  was appointed  to the  Indian Police  Service  with effect from September 3, 1969.      After the  two officers  were appointed  to the  Indian Police  Service  the  question  of  assignment  of  year  of allotment  and   fixation  of   seniority  arose   for   the consideration of  the Government  of India. Shri B. R. Kapur was allotted  the year  1963 and placed below Sube Singh and above S.  R. Sharma  (direct recruits)  in the Indian Police Service, counting his continuous officiating service from 1- 11-66 only,  as service  in a  senior cadre post and not his service in the 460 non-cadre post.  In the  case of  Harjeet Singh,  though  he admittedly officiated  continuously in  a senior  cadre post from December  1960, he  was also  allotted to the year 1963 and placed  below Sri  Kapur on  the ground  that he  ranked below Sri Kapur in the select list.      Kapur and  Harjeet Singh  filed writ  petitions in  the High Court  of Punjab  and Haryana questioning the allotment of the  year 1963.  The Writ  petitions were  accepted.  The Court  directed   the  Union   and  Punjab   Governments  to redetermine the  year of  allotment and seniority of Harjeet Singh and  Kapur taking  December 17. 1960 and July 29, 1965 respectively as the dates of their continuous officiation in a senior  post. A  further direction  was issued that before redetermining  the  seniority  of  the  two  officials,  the respondents to  the Writ  Petitions who were direct recruits should  be   afforded   an   opportunity   to   make   their representation.      Appeals under  clause 10  of the  Letters  Patent  were filed by  the affected  direct recruits  as also  by  B.  R. Kapur. The  direct recruits  contended that  neither  B.  R. Kapur nor  Harjeet Singh would have ever started officiating in the  senior post  on the dates from which they officiated or claimed  officiating in the senior post on the dates from which they  officiated or  claimed  to  have  officiated  in senior posts,  if the  State  Governments  had  not  created artificial  vacancies   by  excessive   utilisation  of  the "deputation and  central reserve"  quota in contravention of the cadre  Rules and  the  Cadre-strength  Regulations.  The arguments before  the Division  Bench therefore was that the period  of  service  attributable  to  over  utilisation  of ’deputation and central reserve’ quota should not be treated as service  in a  senior post for the purpose of determining the year  of allotment  of officers  promoted to  the Indian Police Service.  The argument  was accepted  by the Division Bench and  a direction  was issued to the Central Government to reconsider the question of year of allotment after taking into consideration  the question of over utilisation and its effect. The  finding of  the learned Single Judge that B. R. Kapur was  entitled to  have his  service as Commandant 25th battalion as  officiation  in  a  senior  post  was  however affirmed. Hence  the appeals  by special  leave  by  Harjeet Singh and Kapur.      Allowing the  appeals and dismissing the Petitions, the Court. ^      HELD: 1  Rule 3(3)(b)  of  the  Indian  Police  Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 is valid. [476E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

    A.P. Sharma  v. Union  of  India,  [1968]  S.L.R.  582; followed.      2. Rule  3(3)(b) as  well as  Rule 4(4)  of the  Indian Police Service  (Regulation of Seniority Rules 1954 throw up the date  of continuous officiation of an officer in a cadre post as  the most  important factor  both for the purpose of assignment of  year of  allotment and  for  the  purpose  of assignment of  seniority. For  the purpose  of assignment of year of  allotment the  date of  continuous officiation in a senior post  is the  only  relevant  factor  while  for  the purpose of  assignment of  seniority,  first,  the  date  of continuous officiation  in a  senior post,  then the date of appointment to  the Service  if the  date of commencement of continuous officiation  in a  Senior post  of more  than one officer is  the same  and, finally,  the order in the Select List if  the date  of appointment  is  also  the  same  and, finally, the  order in  the  Select  List  if  the  date  of appointment is  also  the  same  are  the  several  relevant factors in  that order. Thus the order in the Select List is irrelevant for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  year  of allotment 461 and is  relevant in  determining the  seniority, only if the year of  allotment of  the officers  is also  the same,  and their date  of appointment is also the same. Since the order in the  Select List  is dependent  on the  seniority in  the State Service, it follows that seniority in the State Police Service is  irrelevant for  the purpose  of determining  the year of  allotment  and  is  relevant  for  the  purpose  of determining the  seniority only if the year of allotment and the date  of appointment  of two  or more  officers are  the same. Therefore  an officer  who is junior to another in the State Police  Service but, who starts continuous officiation in a  Senior post  from a  date earlier  than the other, may frog-leap and gain seniority by the consequential assignment of an  earlier year  of allotment. Neither the Indian Police Service (Regulation  of Seniority)  Rules nor any other rule in the  innumerable  Rules  and  Regulations  governing  the recruitment, appointment  and  Regulation  of  seniority  of officers of the Indian Police Service is designed to deprive an officer,  the benefit  of  continuous  officiation  in  a senior post. [471G-H, 472A-E]      3. Though  under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)  Regulations, the  Select List  is prepared on the basis  of merit and ability, the order in which officers are placed  in the  Select List is according to seniority in the State  Police Service  and not  according to  merit  and ability. Merit and ability are considered for the purpose of inclusion in the Select List but thereafter seniority in the State Police  Service takes  over and  the names of officers are arranged  in the  order of that seniority. Therefore the benefit of continuous officiation in a Senior post cannot be denied to  an officer appointed to the Indian Police Service merely on  the ground  that an  officer senior to him in the State Police  Service did  not  so  continuously  officiate. [472F-H]      4. It  is true  that under  Regulation 8  of the Indian Police  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)  Regulation  & Appointments to  cadre posts  from among  non-cadre officers should be  made according to the order in which the names of such officers  appear in  the Select  List. A deviation from the  order   is  permissible  if  administrative  exigencies require it and if the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three  months.  Of  course,  the  Regulation  does  not license uninhibited deviation to favour individual non-cadre

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

officers. If  that  is  done  the  deviation  is  liable  to challenge. But  where there  is no such allegation, there is no reason  why a  junior non-cadre  officer should  lose the benefit of his continuous officiation in a cadre post merely because a non-cadre officer senior to him in the Select List did  not   continuously  officiate   likewise.  In   such  a situation, it  would be  for  the  Government  of  India  to consider whether the relevant rules may not be so relaxed as to enable such non-cadre officer to add his officiation in a non-cadre post  to his  officiation in  a cadre post, regard being had  to the  circumstances under which the officer had to work  in a  non-cadre post while his junior in the Select List was made to fill the cadre post. But, surely, it cannot work to  the prejudice  of the  junior officer in the Select List so  as to  nullify the  actual, continuous, officiating service rendered  by him.  In the  present case  there is no allegation that  B. R.  Kapur was appointed to the non-cadre posts of  Director of  Sports and  Additional Controller  of Stores with a view to favour Harjeet Singh. [472 H, 473A-D]      5. Non-cadre  officers if  they are  appointed to cadre posts in  accordance with  Rule 9  of the Cadre Rules should not be  denied the  benefit  of  continuous  officiation  in senior post  merely because cadre officers were appointed on deputation elsewhere  in  excess  of  the  number  of  posts specified against a 462 Deputation Reserve  in the schedule to the Cadre Fixation of Strength Regulation. [473E-F]      Fixation of  Cadre Strength  Regulations  are  made  in exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government by Rule 4(1) of the Cadre Rules and are, therefore, subordinate to the  Cadre rules even as rules made in exercise of powers conferred by  a Statute  are necessarily  subordinate to the Statute.  Rule  6  of  the  Cadre  Rules  provides  for  the deputation of  Cadre officers  and Rule  9 of the same rules provides for the temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre  posts. In making appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre  posts  the  rule  prescribes  the  fulfillment  of certain conditions. In the instant case. that the conditions prescribed by  rule 9  of the  Cadre Rules were fulfilled is clear from the impugned order. [473F-H]      6. Rule  4(1) of  the Cadre  Rules enables  the Central Government to  make Regulations determining the strength and composition of the Cadre of each State. A definite number of posts is  also specified against "Deputation Reserve" in the schedule to  the fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations. But if owing  to the  situational demands  and exigencies of the administration,  the   number  is  exceeded  and  the  State Government  is   compelled  to   utilise  the   services  of experienced non-cadre officers to fill cadre posts in strict compliance with the Cadre Rules, the Service rendered by the non-cadre officers  in such  posts should not be ignored. In the instant  case, the  deputation of  cadre officers was in accordance with Rule 6 of the Cadre Rules. [474A-C]      7. Fixation  of cadre  strength Regulations  made under Rule 4  of the  Cadre Rules do not over-ride the Recruitment Rule, the  remaining Cadre  Rules and the Seniority Rules so as to  render invalid  any service  rendered by  a non-cadre officer in  a cadre post on the mere ground of breach of the Fixation of  Cadre Strength Regulations, when there has been strict compliance  with Rule  9 of the Cadre Rules. Fixation of Cadre  Strength is  the exclusive  concern of the Central and the  State Governments  and the Regulations are made for their  convenience   and  better   relationship.   Excessive utilisation of  ’Deputation or  Central Reserve’ is a matter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

for adjustment  and controversy  between the Central and the State Governments  and is of no concern to any member of the service. For example no cadre officer who is asked to fill a deputation post  can refuse  to join  the post on the ground that the ’Deputation Reserve’ has already been exceeded. The Regulations are  not intended to and do not confer any right on any  member of the Service, unlike some other Rules which do confer or create rights in the members of the Services. A mere breach  of the rule furnishes no cause of action on the ground that  his seniority  is affected  in some round-about way. [474C-G and 475A]      8. Under  Rule 6(A)  (2) of  the Indian  Police Service Recruitment Rules  a direct recruit in the junior time scale of pay  can be  appointed to a post in the Senior time scale of pay if having regard to his length of service, experience and performance  he is  found to be suitable for appointment to post  in the Senior time scale of pay. Since at that time in Punjab,  there was  no direct  recruit in the junior time scale of pay who possessed experience of at least four years who could  be thought of for appointment in the Senior post, the  State  Government  had  no  option  except  to  appoint experienced and  suitable non-cadre officers to cadre posts. Further no cadre officer who had been so deputed suffered in any manner in the matter of his career. [475B-D] 463      Further, the appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts  is   subject  to   the  directions   of  the  Central Government, who  may terminate such appointment. The Central Government too  is bound  to obtain  the advice of the Union Public Service  Commission if  the appointment  is to extent beyond six  months. Moreover  non-cadre officers  of  proven merit only  are appointed to cadre posts. They are appointed to cadre  posts if  they are  already in the Select List and the appointments  are made  in accordance  with the order in which they  are placed  in the Select List which is prepared under the  Indian Police  Service  Recruitment  Rules  after following an  elaborate  procedure  involving    a  thorough examination at  various levels, of the merit of the officers of the  State Police  Service. A  State officer  whose  name appears on  the Select  List may expect to be appointed to a cadre post  and to  be promoted to the Indian Police Service at any  time thereafter  according to  vacancy  position.  A direct recruit  who ordinarily  comes into the picture years after a  State Officer’s  name appears  on the  Select  List cannot have  any real grievance that the promoted officer is given an  anterior date  for the  purpose of seniority since such date  can never be earlier than the date from which the junior most  direct recruit  continuously  officiated  in  a Senior post  prior to  the commencement  of  the  continuous officiation of the promoted officer. [475E-H, 476A-B]      9. Every  departure from  a rule  which departure gives certain advantages to one group of Civil servants as against another does  not necessarily involve an encroachment of the Fundamental Rights  guaranteed by  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The  Fixation of  Cadre  Strength  Regulations cannot be  interpreted as comprising any "Quota" rule. There is no  allegation of breach of "quota" rule embodied in Rule 9(2) of the Recruitment Rules either. [476B-E]      N. K.  Chauhan and  Ors. v.  State of Gujarat, [1977] 1 SCR 1037, distinguished.      10. "The  over-utilisation" of  "Deputation and Central Reserve" does  not affect the questions of assignment of the year of  allotment and  the  seniority  of  the  appellants. [476F-G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2526/77 and 2413/78.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  17-5-1975  of  the Punjab and  Haryana High  Court in LPA Nos. 633, 671, 694/73 and 609/73.                             AND      Writ Petition Nos. 520-524 of 1980.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      Jawahar Lal  Gupta and S. Ghose for the Appellant in CA 2526/77      P. R.  Mridul, M.  R. Agnihotri  and P. C. Bhartari for the Appellant in CA 2413/78.      O. P.  Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the State of Punjab in both the appeals. 464      Lal Narain  Sinha Att.  Genl. Abdul  Khader and Miss S. Subashini for the Union of India in all the appeals.      H. L.  Sibal, R. K. Garg and R. S. Sodhi for Respondent No. 10 in CA 2526 and RR11 in CA 2413.      R. K.  Garg and  R. S. Sodhi’ for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 520-524 of 1980.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In these appeals we have once again to consider  career conscious  competing claims to seniority which appear  so much  to dominate  the lives and careers of our Civil  Servants that  a large  bulk of the cases in this Court relate  to the  resolution of  problems arising out of such claims.  So much of our time is taken up in discovering the precise facts of these intricate problems that we wonder whether the  constitution of  a fact-finding  administrative tribunal who  should invariably  be approached  in the first instance will  not better  serve  the  cause  of  successful administration. An  administrative tribunal  possessing  the necessary  expertise  and  familiarity  with  administrative procedures and  rules may  be able to deal with the problems in a  satisfactory way. At least the facts will be found and the relevant  rules  will  be  known.  Thereafter  aggrieved parties may  approach the  Courts for  further relief within the confines of Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.      On selection  by the  Punjab Public Service Commission, B. R.  Kapur and  Harjeet Singh  were directly recruited, in 1951, as  Deputy Superintendents  of Police  in  the  Punjab Police Service. They are the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2413 of  1978 and 2526 of 1977 respectively. B. R. Kapur was senior to  Harjeet Singh as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In 1960  both of  them were  included  in  the  Select  List prepared under  Regulation 7  of the  Indian Police  Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. On November 24, 1960, B.  R. Kapur  was  appointed  as  Assistant  Inspector General of Police which post was a cadre post. In May, 1961, B. R.  Kapur was  appointed as  Director of Sports and Youth Programme  and   Deputy  Secretary   to  Government,  Sports Department. The post was a non-cadre post. He held this post upto November  18, 1962  and thereafter  he was appointed as Additional Controller  of Stores,  Punjab which  was also  a non-cadre post.  He continued to hold the post of Additional Controller of  Stores till  1965. From July 19, 1965, he was Commandant, 40th  Battalion, PAP,  J &  K, which was a cadre post. He held the post till July 11, 1966, when he took over as Commandant  of 25th Battalion, PAP. On the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, he 465

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

was appointed  as Assistant  Inspector  General  of  Police, State  of  Punjab  from  November  1,  1966.  Thereafter  he continuously held  cadre posts  and was finally appointed to the Indian  Police Service  with effect  from  September  3, 1969.      Shri  Harjeet  Singh  was  appointed  to  officiate  as Superintendent of  Police in  December, 1960. The post was a cadre post.  He continued  to hold  a cadre post till he was appointed to  the Indian  Police Service  with  effect  from September 3,  1969. After the two officers were appointed to the Indian Police Service the question of assignment of year of  allotment  and  fixation  of  seniority  arose  for  the consideration of  the Government  of India. Shri B. R. Kapur was allotted  to the  year 1963  and placed below Sube Singh and above  Shri S. R. Sharma (direct recruits) in the Indian Police Service  Gradation List  of Punjab. The period of his service as  Director of  Sports and  Youth Programme  and as Additional  Controller   of  Stores   was  not   taken  into consideration as  both the  posts were  non-cadre posts. His service as  Commandant of  25th Battalion was also not taken into account  on the ground that the 25th Battalion had been taken over by the Government of India and therefore the post of Commandant of the 25th Battalion was a non-cadre post. He was, therefore, treated as having continuously officiated in a senior  cadre post  from November  1, 1966  only. On  that basis he  was allotted  to the  year 1963.  In the  case  of Harjeet Singh,  though admittedly he officiated continuously in a  senior cadre  post from  December, 1960  he  was  also allotted to  the year 1963 and placed below Shri B. R. Kapur on the  ground that  he ranked below Shri B. R. Kapur in the select list.      B. R.  Kapur and  Harjeet Singh filed Writ Petitions in the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  questioning  the allotment of  the year  1963 to  them  for  the  purpose  of seniority in  the Indian  Police Service. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the petitions in the first instance held  that there  was no  reason at all why Harjeet Singh should not be given the full benefit of his continuous officiation in  a senior  post. He,  therefore, directed the Union and  Punjab Governments  to redetermine  the  year  of allotment of Harjeet Singh, taking December 17, 1960, as the date from which he continuously officiated in a senior post. It  was  also  directed  that  proper  seniority  should  be assigned to  him in accordance with the year of allotment so determined. In the case of B. R. Kapur it was held that July 29, 1965,  should be  treated as  the date of his continuous officiation  in   a  senior  post.  It  was  held  that  the Government of India and the Government of Punjab had all the time treated the post of Commandant, 466 25th Battalion  as a  cadre post  and therefore, B. R. Kapur was entitled  to have his service in the post of Commandant, 25th Battalion  as officiation in a Senior post. A direction was issued  that the  year of allotment and seniority should be  re-determined.  It  was  further  directed  that  before redetermining  the   seniority  of  the  two  officers,  the respondents to  the Writ Petitions who were direct recruits, should  be   afforded   an   opportunity   to   make   their representations.      Appeals under  Clause 10  of the  Letters  Patent  were filed by  the affected  direct recruits  as also  by  B.  R. Kapur. Before  the Division  Bench the case took a new turn. It was  argued before  the Division  Bench on  behalf of the direct recruits  that neither  B. R. Kapur nor Harjeet Singh would have  ever started  officiating in  the senior post on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

the dates  from which  they officiated  or claimed  to  have officiated in  senior posts, if the State Government had not created artificial  vacancies by  excessive  utilisation  of ’the deputation  and central reserve’ quota in contravention of the  Cadre Rules  and the  Cadre-strength Regulations. It was apparently sought to be argued before the Division Bench that the  period of service attributable to over utilisation of ’deputation  and central  reserve’ quota  should  not  be treated as  service in  a senior  post for  the  purpose  of determining the  year of  allotment of  officers promoted to the Indian  Police Service. The argument was accepted by the Division Bench  and a  direction was  issued to  the Central Government to  reconsider the  question of year of allotment after  taking   into  consideration  the  question  of  over utilisation and  its effect.  The  finding  of  the  learned Single Judge  that B.  R. Kapur  was entitled  to  have  his service as  Commandant 25th  Battalion as  officiation in  a senior post was however affirmed.      Shri Jawahar  Lal Gupta,  learned counsel  for  Harjeet Singh argued  that the  service of Harjeet Singh in a senior cadre post  was approved by the Government of India and once it was  so approved  the question  whether  there  was  over utilisation of  deputation and  central  reserve  quota  was irrelevant for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  year  of allotment.  The  only  relevant  question  was  whether  the appellant had  continuously officiated in a senior post and, from what  date. There after the year of allotment was to be determined by  the simple and mechanical application of rule 3(3)  (b)  of  the  Indian  Police  Service  (Regulation  of Seniority) Rules. He further submitted that the circumstance that B.  R. Kapur  was senior to Harjeet Singh in the Select List was also irrelevant in considering the question of year of allotment.  It was  only if  both of  them were given the same year  of allotment that their inter-se seniority in the Select List  would become  relevant.  Shri  Mridul,  learned counsel for B. R. Kapur, argued that 467 the single  Judge of  the High  Court was wrong in excluding the period  of service  of B. R. Kapur as Director of Sports and as  Additional Controller  of Stores  in determining the year of  allotment. He  further contended  that in any event the case  of B.  R. Kapur  was an  appropriate one  for  the exercise by the Central Government of its power to relax the rules and  that this  Court should  give a  direction to the Central Government  to relax  the rules so as to enable that part of Kapur’s service to be treated as service in a senior post.      Shri H.  L. Sibal,  learned  counsel  for  one  of  the respondents argued  that the  number of  cadre officers  who could be  deputed by  the Central  and State Governments for service elsewhere was limited and fixed by the Indian Police Service  (Fixation   of  Cadre   Strength)  Regulations.  By deputing  more  cadre  officers  than  authorised  by  those Regulations and  appointing non-cadre officers to artificial vacancies so  created in  cadre posts,  the State Government had adopted  a device  to enable  the officers  of the State Police Service  to continuously  officiate in  Senior  posts longer than  justified. The  Cadre Strength Regulations were thereby contravened  and the  Cadre Rules  which provide for the temporary  appointment of  non-cadre officers  to  cadre posts circumvented.  He submitted  that officiating  service rendered by  a non-cadre  officer in a Senior post where the vacancy in the cadre post was the result of over utilisation of the  deputation quota  could not  be taken  into  account under the  Indian Police  Service  Regulation  of  Seniority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

Rules. Shri  R. K.  Garg, who  appeared  for  the  remaining respondents urged  that to  permit promoted officers to take advantage of  the deviation  from the  Cadre Rules  and  the Cadre Fixation  of Strength  Regulations for  the purpose of gaining an  advantage under  the Seniority  Rules would be a denial of  the equal  protection of  the laws  to the direct recruits who  would be  affected by  such procedure. He also urged that  Rule 3  of the Seniority Rules if so interpreted as to  take into  account officiation against the rules must be  held   to  contravene   Articles  14   and  16   of  the constitution.      In order  to appreciate  the rival  contentions  it  is necessary to  examine  the  relevant  statutory  provisions, rules and regulations.      Article 312(1)  empowers Parliament to provide, by law, for the  creation of  All India Services common to the Union and the  States. Article  312(2) declares  that the services known at  the commencement of the Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service  and the  Indian Police Service shall be deemed  to be  services created  by Parliament under Art. 312(1). 468      S. 2  of the  All India  Services Act,  1951 defines an "All India  Service" as  meaning the  service known  as  the Indian Administrative  Service or  the service  known as the Indian Police  Service or  any other service specified in S. 2(A).  Sec.   3  enables   the  Central   Government   after consultation with  the Government of the States concerned to make rules  for  the  regulation  of  recruitment,  and  the conditions of  service of  persons appointed to an All India Service.      The Indian  Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, made in exercise of  the powers  conferred by  S. 3  (1) of  the All India Services  Act, provide  for the constitution of Cadres and certain connected matters. A Cadre Officer is defined as a member  of the  Indian Police  Service and a Cadre post is defined as  any of  the posts specified under item 1 of each cadre in the schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre  Strength) Regulations,  1955. Rule  4(1)  provides that the strength and composition of a cadre constituted for each State  or group  of States  shall be  as determined  by Regulations made  by the  Central Government in consultation with the  State Governments.  Rule 4(2) requires the Central Government to  re-examine the  strength and  composition  of each such  cadre  at  intervals  of  every  three  years  in consultation with the State Government concerned and to make such alterations  as it deems fit. The first proviso to Rule 4(2) expressly  stipulates that  the power  of  the  Central Government to  alter the  strength and  composition  of  any cadre at  any other  time is  not affected by rule 4(2). The second proviso  to r.  4(2) enables  the State Government to add, 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 State  cadre one  or more  posts carrying duties  or responsibilities  of a  like nature to a cadre post.  Rule  6  authorises  the  deputation  of  cadre officers for service under the Central Government or another State Government  or under a Company, Association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned  or controlled by the Central Government or a  State Government,  a Municipal  Corporation or a Local body or  an international  organisation  etc.  etc.  Rule  8 prescribes "save as otherwise provided in these rules, every cadre post  shall be  filled by  a cadre officer". Rule 9(1) provides  for  the  temporary  appointment  of  a  non-cadre

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

officer to a cadre post if the State Government is satisfied that the  vacancy is  not likely to last for more than three months or  if there  is no  suitable cadre officer available for filling  the  vacancy.  Where  a  non-cadre  officer  is appointed to  a cadre  post for  a  period  exceeding  three months the  State Government is required forthwith to report the fact  to the  Central  Government  together  with  their reasons for making the 469 appointment. The  Central Government  may  then  direct  the State Government to terminate the appointment of such person and to  appoint a  cadre officer  to the post, in which case the  State  Government  is  bound  to  give  effect  to  the direction. Where  a cadre  post is  likely to be filled by a non-cadre officer  for a  period exceeding  six  months  the Central Government  is required  to report the full facts to the Union  Public Service Commission and may thereafter give appropriate directions  to the State Government in the light of the advice given by the Union Public Service Commission.      Pursuant to  the powers  conferred by  R. 4(1)  of  the Indian Police  Service Cadre  Rules, the  Central Government has made  the  Indian  Police  Service  (Fixation  of  Cadre Strength) Regulations  1955, determining  the  strength  and composition of  the cadres  of each  of the  States. In  the schedule the  total authorised  cadre strength for the State of Punjab  is mentioned  as 70 consisting of 34 Senior Posts under the  State  Government,  14  Senior  posts  under  the Central Government,  7 Deputation  Reserve  posts,  6  Leave Reserve posts  and 7  Junior posts  and 4  Training  Reserve posts.  The   thirty  four  senior  posts  under  the  State Government are  also particularly  specified. Thirty six out of the  total of  forty eight Senior posts under the Central and State  Governments, the  deputation Reserve  posts,  the Leave Reserve  posts, the  Junior  posts  and  the  Training Reserve posts  are all  stated  to  be  ‘direct  recruitment posts’ while the remaining 12 Senior posts under the Central and State Governments are stated to be "promotion posts". It is necessary  to mention  here that  the thirty  four  posts specified as  "Senior posts  under the State Government" are shown as  item 1  of the  schedule and  the fourteen  Senior posts under  the Central  Government are  shown as item 2 of the schedule.      The Indian  Police Service  (Recruitment)  Rules,  1954 provide for  recruitment to the Service (a) by a competitive service and  (b) by  promotion of  substantive members  of a State  Police   Service.  Rule  9(1)  empowers  the  Central Government to  recruit to  the Indian Police Service persons by promotion  from amongst  the substantive  members of  the State Police  Service in accordance with Regulations made by the Central  Government. The  recruitment is  required to be made on the recommendation of the State Government concerned and  in   consultation  with   the  Union   Public   Service Commission. Rule  9(2) provides  that the  total  number  of persons recruited  by promotion shall not at any time exceed 25% of the number of posts shown against item No. 1 and 2 of the cadre  in the  schedule to  the  Indian  Police  Service (Fixation of  Cadre Strength)  Regulation. Items 1 and 2, we have already  mentioned are Senior posts under the State and the Central Governments. 470      The Indian  Police Service  (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations 1955,  made pursuant  to Rule 9(1) of the Indian Police Service  Recruitment Rules  1954  prescribes  a  very elaborate procedure  for making appointments by promotion to the Indian Police Service. A Selection Committee is required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

to be  constituted for each State consisting of the Chairman or any  other member  of the Union Public Service Commission and other  members specified in the schedule. In the case of Punjab the  other members  are the  Chief Secretary  to  the Government of  Punjab, the  Secretary to  the Government  of Punjab in  the Home  Department, the  Inspector  General  of Police and  a nominee  of the  Government of India not below the rank  of Joint  Secretary. The  Selection  Committee  is required to  meet at  intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year and  to consider  the cases of all eligible substantive members of  the  State  Police  Service.  The  Committee  is required to  prepare a  list of such eligible members of the State Police  Service who  are suitable for promotion to the Indian Police  Service The  selection for  inclusion in  the list is to be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due  regard to  seniority but the names of the officers included in the list are required to be arranged in order of seniority in  the State Police Service. The list prepared by the Selection Committee is then to be forwarded to the Union Public Service  Commission by  the State Government with all relevant records,  the reasons recorded by the Committee for any proposed  supersession of any member of the State Police Service and  the observation  of the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee. Thereafter the Union Public Service Commission  is to  consider the list prepared by the Committee and  to make any changes considered by them, to be necessary, after  informing  the  State  Government  of  the proposed changes.  The  list  as  finally  approved  by  the Commission is to form ‘the Select List of the members of the State Police  Service.’ All  appointments of  members of the State Police  Service from the Select List to posts borne on the State  cadre are  to be  made  in  accordance  with  the provisions of  R. 9  of  the  Cadre  Rules.  In  making  the appointments the  State Government is to follow the order in which the  names of  such officers appear in the Select List except where administrative exigencies require otherwise and the vacancy  is not  likely to  last  for  more  than  three months. Appointments of members to the Indian Police Service are  to   be  made   by  the   Central  Government   on  the recommendation of the State Government in the order in which the names  of the members of the State Police Service appear in the Select List for the time being in force.      We  arrive   finally  at   the  Indian  Police  Service (Regulation of  Seniority) Rules 1954. Rules 3 provides that every officer shall be assigned 471 a year  of allotment  in accordance  with the  provisions of that  rule.   Rule  3(3)(b)  prescribes  that  the  year  of allotment of  an officer  who is appointed to the service by promotion in  accordance with  rule  9  of  the  Recruitment rules, shall  be the  year of  allotment of  the junior most among the  officers recruited by competitive examination who officiated continuously in a Senior post from a date earlier than the  date of  commencement of  such officiation  by the officer appointed to the service by promotion. ‘Senior post’ was originally  defined as  a post  included  and  specified under item  1 of  the cadre of each State in the Schedule to the Indian  Police  Service  (Fixation  of  Cadre  Strength) Regulation and  as including  posts declared  by  the  State Government as  equivalent to  such posts. The definition was amended with  effect from  April 22,  1967 and  the  present definition does not include posts declared equivalent by the State Government to cadre posts.      Rule 4(1)  provides  that  the  seniority  of  officers inter-se  shall   be  determined   in  accordance  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

provisions  of  the  rules.  Rule  4(4)  provides  that  the Seniority of  officers who  are assigned  the same  year  of allotment shall  be in  the order of the dates on which they started officiating  continuously in the Senior post, but in the case  of Officers appointed to the service by promotion, the dates  of officiation  shall be  the same  as the  dates taken into  account for the purpose of assignment of year of allotment under  rule 3(3).  Where the dates of commencement of continuous  officiation in a Senior post of more than one Officer appointed  to the  service by  promotion is the same their seniority  inter-se shall  be in  the order  of  their dates of  appointment to  the service  and where the date of appointment is  also the  same it  shall be  in the order in which  their  names  are  arranged  on  the  date  of  their appointment to the service in the Select List.      These  are   the  Statutory   provisions,   Rules   and Regulations with  which we  are  concerned  in  the  present appeals. What  are primarily  in question  are the  year  of allotment and  the Seniority  of the  two officers,  Harjeet Singh and B. R. Kapur. So, therefore, our primary concern is with the  Indian Police  Service (Regulation  of  Seniority) Rules, 1954. Rule 3(3) (b) as well as rule 4(4) throw up the date of continuous officiation of an officer in a cadre post as the  most  important  factor  both  for  the  purpose  of assignment of  year of  allotment and  for  the  purpose  of assignment of  seniority. For  the purpose  of assignment of year of  allotment the  date of  continuous officiation in a senior post  is the  only  relevant  factor  while  for  the purpose of  assignment of  seniority,  first,  the  date  of continuous officiation in a senior post is the only relevant factor  while  for  the  if  the  date  of  commencement  of continuous officiation in a Senior 472 post of  more than one officer is the same and, finally, the order in  the Select List if the date of appointment is also the same,  are the  several relevant  factors in that order. Thus the  order in  the Select  List is  irrelevant for  the purpose of determining the year of allotment and is relevant in determining  the seniority, only if the year of allotment of the Officers is the same and their date of appointment is also the  same. Since  the  order  in  the  Select  List  is dependent on  the seniority in the State Service, it follows that seniority in the State Police Service is irrelevant for the purpose  of determining  the year  of allotment  and  is relevant for  the purpose  of determining the seniority only if the  year of allotment and the date of appointment of two or  more   officers  are   the  same.  It  must,  therefore, necessarily follow  that an officer who is junior to another in the  State Police  Service  but,  who  starts  continuous officiation in  a Senior  post from  a date earlier than the other, may frog-leap and gain Seniority by the consequential assignment of an earlier year of allotment. There is nothing in the  Indian  Police  Service  (Regulation  of  Seniority) Rules, which  has the  effect of  depriving an  officer  the benefit of  continuous officiation  on the  ground that some one senior  to him  in the  State Police  Service did not so continuously officiate.  Nor are  we able  to  discover  any other  rule   in  the   innumerable  Rules  and  Regulations governing the  recruitment, appointment  and  Regulation  of Seniority of  officers of the Indian Police Service which is designed to  deprive an  officer, the  benefit of continuous officiation in a Senior post.      One of  the submissions  made to  us by the respondents was that  the Select List having been prepared on grounds of merit and  ability, the  order in which officers were ranked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

in the  Select List  should not be disturbed after they were actually  promoted   to  the  Indian  Police  Service.  This submission is  without substance.  Though under  the  Indian Police Service  (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations, the Select List  is prepared  on the basis of merit and ability, the order in which officers are placed in the Select List is according to  seniority in  the State Police Service and not according to  merit  and  ability.  Merit  and  ability  are considered for  the purpose  of inclusion in the Select List but thereafter  seniority in  the State Police Service takes over and  the names of Officers are arranged in the order of that seniority.  We,  are,  therefore,  satisfied  that  the benefit of continuous officiation in a Senior post cannot be denied to  an officer appointed to the Indian Police Service merely on  the ground  that an  officer senior to him in the State Police Service did not so continuously officiate.      It is,  however, true  that under  Regulation 8  of the Indian   Police    Service   (Appointment    by   Promotion) Regulations, appointments to 473 cadre posts  from among  non-cadre officers  should be  made according to  the order  in which the names of such officers appear in  the Select  List. A  deviation from  the order is permissible if  administrative exigencies  require it and if the vacancy  is not  likely to  last  for  more  than  three months.  Of   course,  the   Regulation  does   not  license uninhibited  deviation   to  favour   individual   non-cadre officers. If  that  is  done  the  deviation  is  liable  to challenge. But  where there  is no such allegation, there is no reason  why a  junior non-cadre  officer should  lose the benefit of his continuous officiation in a cadre post merely because a non-cadre officer senior to him in the Select List did  not   continuously  officiate   likewise.  In   such  a situation, it  would be  for  the  Government  of  India  to consider whether the relevant rules may not be so relaxed as to enable such non-cadre officer to add his officiation in a non-cadre post  to his  officiation in  a cadre post, regard being had  to the  circumstances under which the officer had to work  in a  non-cadre post while his junior in the Select List was made to fill the cadre post. But, surely, it cannot work to  the prejudice  of the  junior officer in the Select List so  as to  nullify the  actual, continuous, officiating service rendered  by him.  In the  present case  there is no allegation that  B. R.  Kapur was appointed to the non-cadre posts of  Director of  Sports and  Additional Controller  of Stores with a view to favour Harjeet Singh.      Now, the  question for  consideration is  whether  non- cadre officers  are to  be denied  the benefit of continuous officiation in  senior post  merely because  cadre  officers were appointed  on deputation  elsewhere in  excess  of  the number of  posts specified  against ‘Deputation  Reserve’ in the schedule  to the  Cadre Fixation of Strength Regulation. We are  unable to  discover any  provision in  the Seniority Rules,  Recruitment   Rules,  Cadre   Rules  or   the  Cadre Regulations which would lead to such a consequence. To begin with it  has to  be borne in mind that the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations  are made  in exercise  of  the  powers conferred on  the Central  Government by  Rule 4(1)  of  the Cadre Rules  and are,  therefore, subordinate  to the  Cadre rules even  as rules made in exercise of powers conferred by a Statute are necessarily subordinate to the Statute. Rule 6 of the  Cadre Rules  provides for  the deputation  of  Cadre Officers and  Rule 9  of the  same rules  provides  for  the temporary appointment  of non-cadre officers to cadre posts. In making  appointments of non-cadre officers to cadre posts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

the rule  prescribes the  fulfillment of certain conditions. It is  not disputed that the conditions prescribed by Rule 9 of the  Cadre Rules were fulfilled. That the conditions were fulfilled is  also apparent from the very impugned order. If non-cadre  officers   are  appointed   to  cadre   posts  in accordance with Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules, is there 474 any justification  for denying  the  non-cadre  officer  the benefit of  officiation in the cadre post on the ground that more  cadre  officers  than  the  number  specified  in  the Fixation of  Cadre Strength Regulations had been deputed for service elsewhere  ? It  is not disputed that the deputation of cadre officers was in accordance with Rule 6 of the Cadre Rules. True, Rule 4(1) of the Cadre Rule enables the Central Government to  make Regulations determining the strength and composition of the Cadre of each State. It is also true that a definite  number of posts is specified against ‘Deputation Reserve’ in  the schedule  to the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations. But  if owing  to the  situational demands  and exigencies of  the administration the number is exceeded and the State Government is compelled to utilise the services of experienced non-cadre officers to fill cadre posts in strict compliance with  the Cadre  Rules, we  see no reason to hold that the  service rendered by the non-cadre officers in such posts should be ignored.      On the  other hand  we think that the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations made under Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules do not over-ride  the Recruitment  Rule,  the  remaining  Cadre Rules and  the Seniority  Rules so  as to render invalid any service rendered  by a  non-cadre officer in a cadre post on the mere  ground of breach of the Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations, when there has been strict compliance with Rule 9 of  the Cadre  Rules. We  think  that  fixation  of  Cadre strength is  the exclusive  concern of  the Central  and the State Governments  and the  Regulations are  made for  their convenience and  better relationship.  Excessive utilisation of  ‘Deputation   or  Central   Reserve’  is  a  matter  for adjustment and controversy between the Central and the State Governments and  is of  no concern  to  any  member  of  the Service. For example no cadre officer who is asked to fill a deputation post  can refuse  to join  the post on the ground that the ‘Deputation Reserve’ has already been exceeded. The Regulations are  not intended to and do not confer any right on any  member of the Service, unlike some other Rules which do confer  or create  rights in the members of the Services. Among  other   Rules,  for   instance,  Rule   9(2)  of  the Recruitment  Rules  stipulates  that  the  total  number  of persons recruited  by promotion shall not at any time exceed 25% of  the posts  shown against  item Nos.  1 and  2 of the cadre in  the schedule  to the  Fixation of  Cadre  Strength Regulations. Now,  if at  a point  of  time  this  limit  is exceeded,  direct   recruits  may  have  a  just  cause  for complaint and  it may  perhaps be held that to the extent of the excess  the appointments  by promotion  are invalid  and confer no  rights of seniority over direct recruits. But, as we said,  the Fixation  of  Strength  Regulation  confer  no rights on  members of  the Service  and a mere breach of the Regulation furnishes no cause of action to any member of the service 475 On the  ground that  his seniority is affected in some round about way.  We may add that there is no suggestion that Rule 9(2) of the Recruitment Rules was contravened.      It was  brought to our notice that several Senior cadre officers had  to be  deputed to  organise Battalions  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

Punjab Armed  Police which  came  to  be  formed  after  the Chinese aggression  in 1962  and at  the time  of the  Indo- Pakistan War  in 1965.  It was  in the  vacancies caused  by their deputation  that Senior  officers of  the State Police Services were  appointed to cadre posts. Under Rule 6(A) (2) of the  Indian Police  Service Recruitment  Rules  a  direct recruit in  the junior time scale of pay can be appointed to a post  in the  Senior time scale of pay if having regard to his length  of service,  experience and  performance  he  is found to be suitable for appointment to a post in the Senior time scale of pay. It appears that, at that time, in Punjab, there was  no direct recruit in the Junior time scale of pay who possessed  experience of atleast four years who could be thought of  for appointment  in the  Senior post.  The State Government, therefore,  had  no  option  except  to  appoint experienced and  suitable non-cadre officers to cadre posts. It was  also brought to our notice that no cadre officer who had been  so deputed suffered in any manner in the matter of his career.      It was  repeatedly suggested that the State Governments were generally in the habit of adopting stratagem of sending cadre officer  on deputation  in excess  of  the  Deputation Reserve in order to enable Officers of the State Services to officiate in cadre posts so as to further enable them to get the benefit  of such  continuous  officiation  when  finally appointed to  an All India Service. Whatever truth there may be in  the suggestion  it has  to be remembered firstly that the appointment  of non-cadre  officers to  cadre  posts  is subject to  the directions of the Central Government who may terminate such  appointment. The  Central Government  too is bound to  obtain the  advice of  the  Union  Public  Service Commission if  the  appointment  is  to  extend  beyond  six months. Next, it has also to be borne in mind that non-cadre officers of  proven merit only are appointed to cadre posts. They are appointed to cadre posts if they are already in the Select List and the appointments also are made in accordance with the  order in which they are placed in the Select List. We have  earlier mentioned  how the  Select List  itself  if prepared under  the Indian  Police Service Recruitment Rules after following  an elaborate procedure involving a thorough examination of  various levels, of the merit of the officers of the  State Police  Service. A  State officer  whose  name appears on  the Select  List may expect to be appointed to a Cadre post  and to  be promoted to the Indian Police Service at any  time thereafter  according to  vacancy  position.  A direct recruit who ordi- 476 narily comes  into the picture years after a State Officer’s name appears  on  the  Select  List  cannot  have  any  real grievance that  the promoted  officer is  given an  anterior date for  the purpose of seniority since such date can never be earlier  than the  date from which the junior most direct recruit continuously  officiated in  a Senior  post prior to the  commencement  of  the  continuous  officiation  of  the promoted officer.      We are also unable to appreciate the submission of Shri R. K. Garg that every departure from a rule, which departure gives certain  advantages to  one group of civil servants as against another  necessarily involves an encroachment of the Fundamental Rights  guaranteed by  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The  proposition is widely stated, far fetched in relation  to the  facts  of  the  instant  case  and  not supported by  N. K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat(1) on which Shri  Garg relied.  In Chauhan’s  case the  Court  was considering the  effect of  the breach  of  a  ’Quota’  rule

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

fixing the  proportion of ’direct recruits’ and ’promotees’. In the  present case,  as already noticed by us, there is no allegation of  breach of  the ’quota’  rule embodied in Rule 9(2)  of  the  Recruitment  Rules.  The  Fixation  of  Cadre Strength Regulations cannot be interpreted as comprising any ’Quota’ rule. The consequential submission of Shri Garg that rule 3(3)(b),  if so  interpreted as  to take  into  account officiation in  contravention of the rules, offends Articles 14 and  16 of  the Constitution,  therefore, loses all force particularly in  view of  what we  have said  about the true nature of  the Fixation  of Cadre  Strength Regulations.  We also notice  that the  vires of  Rule 3(3)(b)  of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules which is in  similar terms  as rule  3(3)(b) of  the Indian Police Service (Regulation  of Seniority)  Rules was  upheld  by  a Constitution Bench of this Court in A. P. Sharma v. Union of India.(2)      In the  light of  our foregoing discussion we hold that the ’over  utilisation’ of  ’Deputation and Central Reserve’ does not  affect the  questions of assignment of the year of allotment  and   the  seniority   of  the   appellants.  The concurrent finding  of the  learned  single  judge  and  the Division Bench  that Kapur’s  service as  Commandant, P.A.P. Battalion No.  25 was  service in  a  Senior  post  was  not challenged before  us. Shri  Mridul argued  that the records reveal that  Kapur’s appointment to the posts of Director of Sports and  Additional Controller  of Stores  was because of his exceptional  ability and, therefore, those posts must be treated as  cadre posts.  In any event, he suggested that we should invite the Government of India to suitably 477 relax the  rules so as to enable Kapur’s service as Director of Sports and Additional Controller of Stores to be reckoned as service  in cadre posts. We cannot of course hold Kapur’s service in  non-cadre posts  as service  in cadre posts. Nor can we  give the  direction sought  by Shri Mridul. It is of course open  to Kapur  to invoke the power of the Government of India  to relax the rules and it is for the Government to take a  just decision  in the  matter. We  have no advice to offer.      Both the Civil Appeals are allowed, the Judgment of the Division Bench  is set  aside and the judgment of the Single Judge is  restored. Writ  Petition Nos.  520-524  have  been filed by  some of  the direct recruits questioning the vires of rule  3(3)(b) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules  and Rule  3  of  the  All  India  Services (Conditions of  Service-Residuary Matter)  Rules, 1960 which vests in the Government of India the power to relax. We have upheld the  validity of  Rule 3(3)(b)  of the  Indian Police Service (Regulation  of Seniority) Rules and the question of the vires  of Rule 3 of the All India Service (Conditions of Service residuary  matters) rules does not arise at present. The Writ Petitions are also dismissed. S.R.              Appeals allowed and Petitions dismissed. 478