http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

PETITIONER: MARKANDEY SINGH, I.P.S., & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.L. BHANOT, I.P.S., & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (3) 847        1988 SCC  (3) 539  JT 1988 (2)   509        1988 SCALE  (1)855

ACT:      Indian Police  Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules- Challenging order  of High  Court in matter of rectification of year of allotment of absorption in Indian Police Service, quashing order  of allotment of year in I.P.S. Cadre, passed by Central  Government-Whether  benefit  of  officiation  on senior post  in I.P.S.  cadre of a State while on deputation to State Police Service of that State from another State, in matter of  fixation of  year of  allotment could  be claimed under proviso to rule 3(3) (b) of.

HEADNOTE:      Shri Markandey Singh, the appellant in the first appeal had joined  the U.P.  State Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police by passing a competitive examination. In November, 1953, he  joined on  deputation the Union Territory of Delhi which at  that time  had no police service of its own. While on  deputation  and  again  in  1959-60,  he  officiated  as Superintendent  of   Police  but   was  reverted   back  for administrative reasons.  In  July,  1960,  Himachal  Pradesh Indian Police Service was created and thereafter, the Delhi- Himachal Pradesh  Police Service,  in  March  1961.  On  6th December, 1961,  Shri Singh  was again promoted to officiate as Superintendent  of  Police.  During  the  period  of  his officiation, his  request for being absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh  State  Police  Service  was  accepted  and  he  was absorbed  in   the  State  Service  with  effect  from  27th November, 1962.  He was  confirmed in  the  Union  Territory Cadre of  I.P.S. with  effect from  14th May,  1964. He  was assigned  1958   as  the   year  of  allotment.  He  made  a representation against the order of allotment to the Central Government, claiming  the benefit  of officiation  from  6th December, 1961  to 13th  May, 1963 in the matter of fixation of his  year of  allotment. The  Central Government rejected the representation  by order  dt. 23rd  April,  1970,  which stated that  in accordance  with  the  orders  contained  in letter NO.  1/2/62 Delhi  IDH(S) dated 23.8.1963 of the Home Ministry, all  cadre posts held by non-cadre officers not on the Select  List were  deemed to  have been kept in abeyance with effect from 27th September, 1961 onwards, and according to the  seniority rules,  the service rendered by an officer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

prior to  his inclusion  in the  Select List  could  not  be counted for seniority 848 unless approved  by the  Central Government  in consultation with the  Union Public  Service Commission  under the Second Proviso  to   rule  3(3)(b)  of  the  Seniority  Rules.  The requisite approval was not there.      Shri Singh  made a  second representation on 23rd June, 1970. The  Central Government  by order dt. 21st June, 1973, accepted the  second representation,  gave  the  benefit  of officiation in question and assigned to him 1956 as the year of allotment.  The reason  why the second representation was accepted was  that  in  November,  1972,  the  Union  Public Service Commission  had approved  of the officiation of Shri Singh in  the I.P.S. cadre for the relevant period under the second proviso  to rule  3(3)(b) of  the Seniority Rules "as they stood  in May,  1963." In  consequence, he  was  placed above Shri M.L. Bhanot, respondent, in the gradation list of Union Territory of I.P.S.      Feeling  aggrieved   by  the   order  of   the  Central Government, Shri  Bhanot filed  a writ  petition before  the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the same, and quashed the order dt.  21st June,  1973. Against  the  judgment  of  the Single Judge,  two appeals  were filed  before the  Division Bench of  the High  Court-one by Shri Singh, and the second, by the  Union of  India. Both  the appeals were dismissed by the Division  Bench. Aggrieved  by the  decision of the High Court, Shri  Singh and  the Union  of India  filed these two appeals for relief in this Court.      Dismissing the appeals with directions, the Court, ^      HELD: The  question involved in the appeals was whether the year  of allotment  given to  Shri  Singh  as  1958  was correct or  not and  whether the  order of  the High  Court, quashing the  year of  allotment given to Shri Singh as 1956 was bad or not. This depended upon the interpretation of the various rules  and provisions  and the  determination of the question whether  an officer  was entitled to the benefit of the service  rendered by  him in a senior post in the I.P.S. cadre of  a particulare  State while he was on deputation to the State  Police Service  of that State from another State, for the  purpose of  working out  the year  of allotment  in accordance with the second proviso to unamended rule 3(3)(b) of the  Indian  Police  Service  (Regulation  of  Seniority) Rules (The ’Seniority Rules’). [855D-F]      Rule 3(3)(b)  of the  Seniority Rules  and the provisos thereto should not be read in isolation. This rule is in the setting of  other rules.  The Indian  Police Service (Cadre) Rules (The  ’Cadre  Rules’)  read  with  the  Indian  Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations of 1955 849 fixed the  strength of  the Indian Police cadre of the Union Territories at  a particular  figure. Out  of them  not more than 25%  officers eligible  for recruitment  to the  I.P.S. cadre had  to be  substantive members  of the  State  (U.P.) Police Service  at that time. The scheme, as it stood, fixed the strength  of the I.P.S. cadre State-wise. Recruitment by promotion thereto could only be from the substantive members of the  Police Service  of that particular State. So long as Shri Singh  remained as  a substantive  member of  the  U.P. State Police  Service, he  could not possibly be promoted to the joint I.P.S. Cadre of the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. He became eligible to his promotion to the Union  Territory,  I.P.S.  cadre  only  after  he  had  been absorbed in the Delhi-Himachal Pradesh State Police Service.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

Proviso (1) to Rule 3(3)(b) of the Recruitment Rules gives a clear indication  that for determining the year of allotment ad hoc the Central Government consulted the State Government concerned. In  Explanation (2) again there is a reference to a certificate  by the  State Government  concerned  that  an officer would  have officiated  in a senior post but for his absence on  leave or  appointment to any special post. It is apparent,  therefore,  that  the  State  Government  is  the Government of  the  Police  Service  of  which  the  officer concerned is a substantive member. In this case, as found by the Division  Bench of  the High  Court, Shri  Singh had not chosen to  be absorbed  in the  Delhi-Himachal Pradesh State Police Service  and he  had gone back to his parent State of U.P. In case Shri Singh had not chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi-Himachal Pradesh  State Service  and had  gone back to his parent  State of  U.P., then  according the  Explanation (2),  the  U.P.  State  Government  might  have  issued  the certificate to  facilitate his promotion to the I.P.S. Cadre of the  U.P. State.  The Promotion  Regulations of 1955 laid down the  determination of  the eligibility of a substantive member of the State Police Service. Thereafter, the names of the eligible  officers were  brought on the Select List, who were to  be  approved  by  the  Public  Service  Commission. Appointments by  promotion to the I.P.S. cadre are made from the Select  List. In  the event  of promotion,  but for  the second proviso,  the benefit  of continuous officiation on a senior post  for fixing his year of allotment is given to an officer from the date after his being nominated on the State List. In  Explanation (1)  of rule 3(3), there is no mention that deputationist before his absorption in the State Police Service can  get the benefit of such officiation. Therefore, it was  not possible  to accept the position that before his absorption Shri  Singh was  entitled to  the benefit  of his officiation. The  Division Bench  of the High Court so held. The Division  Bench was  right on this aspect of the matter. [861D-H;862A-D]      The Seniority  Rules 1954  including rule  3(3)(b) were amended with 850 effect from  22nd April,  1967. Before  the  amendment,  the appellant  Shri  Singh  had  been  confirmed  in  the  Union Territory cadre  of the  Indian Police  Service with  effect from 14th May, 1964, and had been allotted 1958 as the year. The question  of allotment  of Shri Singh in accordance with the Seniority  Rules had  ripened before  the  amendment  of 1967. There  is no  rule vitiating  the operation of the old seniority rules.  Reliance was  placed by the appellant Shri Singh on the decision of this Court in Arun Ranjan Mukharjee v. Union  of India  & Ors.,  [1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 574-A.I.R. 1971 S.C.  1814, and  the appellant  submitted that Division Bench was  in error  in  not  following  the  ratio  of  the decision in  that case.  The Court  could  not  accept  this submission. [862D-E;863C]      In this  case, the Central Government had not fixed the date of  appellant’s absorption  in the  Select List as 1958 out of  the hat,  so to say. It had relevance as it appeared from the  basis of  the order of the Central Government. The appellant, who  was a deputationist before the absorption in the State  Police Service  could not be entitled to get such officiation. In  case, Shri  Singh  had  not  chosen  to  be absorbed in  the Delhi-Himachal Pradesh State Police Service and had  gone back  to  his  parent  State  of  U.P.,  then, according to explanation (2) the U.P. State Government might have issued  the certificate  to facilitate his promotion to the I.P.S.  cadre of  the U.P.  State. But  so long  as Shri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

Singh remained a substantive member of the U.P. State Police Service, he  could not  possibly be permitted to join I.P.S. cadre  of  the  Union  Territories  of  Delhi  and  Himachal Pradesh. In accordance with the rules, he became eligible to his promotion to the Union Territory I.P.S. cadre only after he had  been absorbed  in the  Delhi-Himachal Pradesh Police Service. [864F-H]      The rules  with which  the Court  was concerned,  which state that certain year should be assigned by the Government in consultation  with the Public Service Commission, must be interpreted in  the light  of the  well-established rule  of construction  that   if  the  words  of  a  statute  are  in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound  these words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words  themselves in  such a  case  best  declaring  the intention of  the legislature.  See in  this connection  the observations of  this Court  in The  Collector  of  Customs, Baroda v.  Digvijaysinhji Spinning  &  Weaving  Mills  Ltd., [1962] 1 SCR 896, 899. [865A-B]      The  officiation  in  a  senior  post  is  one  of  the indispensable  ingredients   in  the   application  of  rule 3(3)(b). But  it must  be borne  in mind that this was not a sine qua non. In this case, before the absorption of 851 the appellant  in the  Himachal Pradesh-Delhi  I.P.S. cadre, his officiation had not been taken by the Central Government into consideration. The Court could not say that the Central Government had not acted properly. [865E-F]      This appeal  was not  concerned with  the assignment of year 1958  to Shri Singh but rule 16, clause (1)(iii) of the Service Rules  provides for certain penalties and one of the penalties, inter  alia, is  the effect of superseding him in promotion to  a selection  post and  such is appealable. The High Court  was right  that appeal  does not necessarily lie only against  the order imposing penalty and it is also open to entertain appeal when the service rule was interpreted to the disadvantage  of member  of the service but rule 17 bars the filing of appeal after the expiry of 45 days. Proviso to the said  rule, however,  gives discretion  to the appellate authority to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. Rule 24  of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 provides  for review  within different  periods.  Under that rule  since Shri  Singh could have filed an application for review within one year, in this case remedy of review by Shri Singh  had also become barred when the second order was passed. [865G-H;866A-B]      It appeared  that there  is provision for appeal in the order of  this nature.  Failure to prefer an appeal or apply for review  was no bar to the submission of memorials to the President. In  December, 1963,  in this  case, the  year  of allotment was  assigned to  Shri Singh.  Shri Singh made the first representation  in August,  1969, after  the period of limitation had  expired. It  was contended  by the appellant relying on  the full  Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court  in Sunder  Lal &  Ors. v.  The State  of Punjab, [1970] SLR 59 that in a case of bona fide mistake, there was always the  power to  rectify. It  was emphasized that every Administrative authority  has an  inherent right  to rectify its own  mistakes. It was doubtful that inherent power could be  invoked  if  there  was  no  reason  for  re-fixing  the appellant’s year. If belated claims are allowed arbitrarily, an atmosphere  of uncertainty would prevail. There should be no sense  of uncertainty  among public service. Furthermore, it was  clear that  if the  fixation  of  year  1958  was  a mistake, the  first representation  was  rejected  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

order dated  23rd April, 1970. There, the Government’s order reiterated that  in accordance  with the  order contained in the Home  Ministry’s letter to which reference was made, all cadre posts  held by  the non-cadre  officers not  on Select List were  deemed to  have been kept in abeyance with effect from 27th September, 1961, onwards. As such Shri Singh could not have  claimed that  he had been officiating in the cadre post prior to coming on the Select List. In 852 those circumstances,  Shri Singh could not be deemed to have officiated in  cadre post  during the  period 6th  December, 1961 to  14th May,  1963. The  Central Government was of the view that  the decision taken by it in 1963, fixing the year of allotment  was correct.  It is  true that Home Ministry’s letter referred  to in Annexure-R 4, had been quashed by the High Court but the same had no bearing on the correctness of the decision  taken  by  the  Central  Government  in  1963, because at  the relevant  time, the letter was there and the Central Government was bound to act in accordance therewith. The contention  of the appellant that there was no period of limitation for  the grant  of the approval was not relevant. It  was,  therefore,  clear  that  there  was  no  scope  of acceptance of  the second representation. In the said order, there was no mention of any mistake. [866C-H;867A-C]      When the second order was made, it affected Shri Bhanot adversely because  he in  the meantime  had been absorbed in the I.P.S. in 1957. It was not that the constitutionality of any  provision   was  challenged  as  was  the  case  in  A. Janardhana v.  Union of  India &  Ors., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936, 967. In  this  case,  seniority  of  Shri  Bhanot  would  be adversely affected  as he  had acquired a year of allotment. In the  opinion of  the Court, it should have been done upon notice to Shri Bhanot. [867C-E]      The  High  Court  was  right  in  dismissing  the  writ petition of the appellant. Having regard to the facts of the case, the  Central Government  was  directed  to  refix  the salary scale of the appellant, taking into consideration the appellant’s service  in U.P.  and Himachal  Pradesh cadre in the senior position as a deputationist. [867G]      Arun Ranjan  Mukherjee v. Union of India & Ors., [1971] Suppl. S.C.R.  574-A.I.R. 1971  SC 1814;Madan Gopal Singh v. Union of  India, [1969] S.L.R. 576;D.R. Nim, I.P.S. v. Union of India,  [1967] 2  S.C.R. 325;Government of India and Anr. v.  C.A.  Balakrishnana  &  Ors.,  [1975]  1  S.L.R.  31;The Collector of  Customs, Baroda  v. Digvijaysinhji  Spinning & Weaving Mills  Ltd., [1962]  1 S.C.R.  896, 899;Ram  Prakash Khanna &  Ors., etc.  v. S.A.F. Abbas & Ors., etc., AIR 1972 SC 2350;Sunder Lal & Ors. v. The State of Punjab, [1970] SLR 59;A. Janardhana  v. Union  of India  & Ors.,  [1983] 2  SCR 936,967  and   General  Manager,   South   Central   Railway Secundrabad &  Anr., etc.  v. A.V.R. Siddhanti & Ors., etc., [1974] 3 SCR 207, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1335-36 of 1976. 853      From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.75 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 231 and 267 of 1974.      Markandey Singh,  Appellant-in-person, in  CA. No. 1335 of 1976 and Respondent-in-person in CA. No. 1336 of 1976.      Girish Chandra,  C.V. Subba  Rao and K.S. Guruswamy for the appellants in CA. No. 1336 of 1976.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

    V.C. Mahajan, for the Respondent In 1335 of 1976.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,   J.  These   two   appeals   are connected. These  deal with  the rectification  of  year  of allotment of absorption of the appellant in the first appeal and  respondent  in  the  second  one-Shri  Markandey  Singh (hereinafter called  the appellant  in the  first appeal and respondent in  the  second  appeal)  in  the  Indian  Police Service. Shri  M.L. Bhanot  is the  respondent in  the first appeal. He  is appellant  in the  second appeal  being Civil Appeal No. 1336 of 1976. By the order dated 21st July, 1973, Shri Markandey  Singh was  assigned  1956  as  the  year  of allotment in  I.P.S. cadre.  Shri Bhanot challenged the said order. The  same was  quashed by the learned single judge of Punjab &  Haryana High  Court on  4th April,  1974.  Letters Patent Appeal  against the  said order  was dismissed by the Division Bench of the said High Court on 9th December, 1975. The first appeal aforesaid arises from the said decision. In order to appreciate the position, it may be relevant to note that Shri  Markandey Singh the appellant in the first appeal joined the  U.P. State  Service as  Deputy Superintendent of Police on  17th November,  1950  by  passing  a  competitive examination. Two  years later  he was  confirmed as such. In November, 1953,  he joined on deputation the Union Territory of Delhi  which had  at that  time no  police service of its own. While  on deputation  in 1958 and again in 1959-60, the appellant had officiated as Superintendent of Police but for administrative reasons  was reverted  back. In  July,  1960, Himachal Pradesh  Indian  Police  Service  was  created  and thereafter the  Delhi Himachal  Pradesh  Police  Service  in March, 1961.  On 6th  December, 1961,  Shri Singh  was again promoted to  officiate as  Superintendent of  Police. During the  period  of  his  officiation,  his  request  for  being absorbed in  the Himachal  Pradesh State  Police Service was accepted and  by an  order dated  7th February, 1963, he was absorbed  in   the  State  Service  with  effect  from  27th November, 1962.  While he was continuing to officiate in the senior post as aforesaid, on 854 30th April,  1965, he  was confirmed  in the Union Territory Cadre of  I.P.S. with  effect from  14th May,  1964. He  was assigned 1958  as the  year of  allotment. He, however, made representation against  the order  of allotment  in  August, 1969 to  the Central  Government  claiming  the  benefit  of officiation from 6th December, 1961 to 13th May, 1963 in the matter of  fixation of  his year  of allotment. On 14th May, 1963, the  appellant’s name  had been  brought on the select list of  the officers  to be  promoted to  the Indian Police Service and he was recruited with effect from the same date. It  may  be  noted  that  during  the  preceding  period  of officiation as  mentioned hereinbefore  he was  not  on  the select list.  On 23rd  April, 1970,  his representation  was rejected  by  the  Central  Government.  He  made  a  second representation on  23rd June, 1970. Shri Bhanot had appeared in the  I.P.S. Examination.  He was successful and recruited in  the  Police  Service  in  October,  1957.  The  year  of allotment  assigned  to  him  was  1957.  Shri  Bhanot,  was allotted the  year  1957  on  his  joining  the  service  by examination and  the appellant  allotted the  year  1958  as mentioned hereinbefore.  In November,  1962, the respondent, Shri Bhanot  was promoted as Superintendent of Police in the Union Territory of Delhi with effect from 13th May, 1961. In November, 1966, reorganisation of State of Punjab took place and at  that time  Shri Bhanot  was allotted  to  the  joint I.P.S. Cadre  of Delhi  and Himachal  Pradesh. On  coming to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

know in  December, 1972 about the second representation made by Shri  Singh, Shri  Bhanot wrote to the Central Government that he  having been  allotted the  year 1957  was senior to Shri Singh  and if  any change was brought about in the year of  allotment   of  Shri  Singh  which  was  1958,  he,  the respondent, should  be intimated  of the  reasons so  as  to enable him to make an effective representation. According to the respondent,  which has  been accepted  by  the  Division Bench of  the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the impugned judgment,  he   did  not  hear  anything  from  the  Central Government in  spite of the several reminders. On 21st June, 1973, the  Central Government  by its order of the same date gave the  benefit of  officiation  for  a  period  from  6th December, 1961  to 13th May, 1963 to Shri Singh and accepted his representation  and assigned  to him 1956 as the year of allotment. In  consequence, Shri  Singh was placed below one Shri B.P.  Marwaha and  above Shri  Bhanot in  the gradation list of  Union Territory  of I.P.S.  Feeling aggrieved, Shri Bhanot filed the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 12 of 1974 before the High Court. The learned single judge allowed the same.  He held  that Shri  Singh being on deputation was not entitled  to the  benefit of  officiation on senior post prior to  27th November,  1962 with effect from which he was absorbed in Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police Service. The representation made by Shri Singh was barred by time. 855      It was  further held  by the  learned single judge that acceptance  of  the  second  representation  of  Shri  Singh without  giving   an  opportunity  to  Shri  Bhanot  was  in violation of  the principles  of  natural  justice.  In  the premises the  order dated 21st June, 1973 was quashed by the learned single judge.      There were  two appeals  before the  Division Bench-one was filed  by Shri Singh against the judgment of the learned single judge  and the other was filed by the Union of India. Both these appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench by judgment in  Letters Patent  Appeal No.  231 of 1974 and for the reasons  given in Letters Patent Appeal No. 231 of 1974, the appeal  by the  Union of  India was  also dismissed  and being aggrieved by the said decision, the Union of India has preferred the  second appeal  herein namely Civil Appeal No. 1336 of 1976.      The question  involved in  these appeals is whether the year of allotment given to Shri Singh as 1958 was correct or not and  whether the  order passed by the High Court both of the learned  single judge  which was  later  upheld  by  the Division Bench  to quash  the year of allotment in favour of Shri Singh  for the  year 1956  was bad or not. this depends upon the interpretation of various rules and provisions. The main question  which falls  for consideration  in these  two appeals is  whether the  service rendered by one in a senior post in  the I.P.S.  Cadre of  a particular  State while the incumbent was  on deputation  to the State Police Service of that State  from another  State was  entitled to the benefit for the  purpose of  working out  the year  of allotment  in accordance with  second  proviso  to  rule  3(3)(b)  of  the Seniority Rules.  We are  concerned with  the unamended rule 3(3) of  the said  Rules. The relevant part of the said rule reads as follows:           "3(3)  The   year  of   allotment  of  an  officer           appointed to the Service after the commencement of           these rules, shall be                (a)   Where the  officer is  appointed to the                     Service on the result of a competitive                     examination, the year following the year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

                        in which such examination was held;                (b)  Where the officer is appointed to the                     Service by  promotion in accordance with                     rule 9  of the  Recruitment  Rules,  the                     year of allotment of the junior-most                          among the officers recruited to the 856                     Service in  accordance with  rule  7  of                     those rules  who officiated continuously                     in a  senior post  from a  date  earlier                     than the  date of  commencement of  such                     officiation by the former;           Provided that  the year of allotment of an officer           appointed to the Service in accordance with rule 9           of the  Recruitment Rules  who started officiating           continuously in  a senior post from a date earlier           than  the  date  on  which  any  of  the  officers           recruited to  the Service, in accordance with rule           7 of  those Rules, so started officiating shall be           determined adhoc  by  the  Central  Government  in           consultation with the State Government concerned.           Provided further  that an officer appointed to the           Service after  the  commencement  of  these  Rules           shall be deemed to have officiated continuously in           senior post  prior to the date of the inclusion of           his name in the Select List prepared in accordance           with the requirements of the Indian Police Service           (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation framed under           rule 9  of the Recruitment Rules, if the period of           such officiation prior to that date if approved by           the Central  Government in  consultation with  the           Commission.           Explanation 1.  An officer shall be deemed to have           officiated continuously  in a  senior post  from a           certain date  if during  the period from that date           to the  date of  his confirmation  in  the  senior           grade he  continues to  hold without  any break or           reversion a senior post otherwise than as a purely           temporary to local arrangement.           Explanation 2.  An officer  shall  be  treated  as           having officiating  in a  senior post  during  any           period in  respect of  which the  State Government           concerned  certifies   that  he   would  have   so           officiated  but   for  his  absence  on  leave  or           appointment to  any  special  post  or  any  other           exceptional circumstances."      On behalf  of the  appellant before  us,  reliance  was placed  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Arun  Ranjan Mukherjee v.  Union of  India &  Ors., [1971]  Suppl. S.C.R. 574-A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1814.      It  may   be  mentioned   that  in   1954  the  Central Government, in 857 exercise of  the powers vested in it by section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the ’said Act’) framed certain rules. The Indian Service (Recruitment) Rules (hereinafter called  the ’Recruitment  Rules’),  the  Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ’Cadre’)  and  the  Indian  Police  Service  (Regulation  of Seniority) Rules  (hereinafter referred to as the ’Seniority Rules’).  The  Indian  Police  Service  (Fixation  of  Cadre Strength) Regulations’, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Cadre Regulations’)  were also  framed for  determining the strength and  composition. It  is not  necessary to refer to the various  rules  to  which  the  Division  Bench  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

impugned judgment  has  made  exhaustive  reference.  It  is indisputable that  Shri Singh,  the  appellant  herein,  was holding a  substantive position  in the  U.P.  State  Police Service until  he was taken over in the joint Police Service of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh in February, 1963, with effect from 27th  November, 1962. He was brought on the select list of officers  to be  promoted to  I.P.S. cadre  of the  Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi on 14th May, 1963. Prior to  that, he  had been  continuously officiating  in a senior post  since 6th  December, 1961.  He claimed  that he should be  given  the  benefit  of  that  period.  This  was rejected by  the learned single judge and this rejection was upheld by  the Division  Bench of  the High Court. He was on deputation in  Delhi-Himachal Pradesh  State Police Service. The question is what is the correct position.      The first  representation that  the appellant  made for fixing the  year of  allotment to  be given  the benefit  of continuous officiation  on a  senior post from 6th December, 1961, to  13th May, 1963 was rejected by an order dated 23rd April, 1970.  The said  order of rejection is Annexure R. 4. It stated  that in  accordance with  the orders contained in Letter No.  1/2/62 Delhi IDH(S) dated 23.8.1963, of the Home Ministry, all  cadre posts held by non-cadre officers not on the Select  List were  deemed to  have been kept in abeyance with effect from 27th September, 1961 onwards; and according to the  Seniority Rules,  the service rendered by an officer prior to  his inclusion  in the  Select List  could  not  be counted  for   seniority  unless  approved  by  the  Central Government in  consultation with  the Union  Public  Service Commission under  the Second  proviso to rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules.  The requisite approval, it was stated, was not there.      In the second representation made by the appellant, the Division Bench  noted the  fact that Shri Singh had noted in Madan Gopal  Singh v.  Union of India, [1969] S.L.R. 576 the Division Bench of Delhi High Court had quashed the aforesaid letter of the Home Ministry. A 858 perusal of  the order  dated 21st  June, 1973  made  by  the Central  Government   showed  that  the  representation  was accepted but  not on the ground urged by him. The reason why the  second  representation  was  accepted  by  the  Central Government was  that in  November, 1972,  the  Union  Public Service Commission  had approved  of the officiation of Shri Singh in  the  I.P.S.  cadre  post  during  the  period  6th December, 1961 to 13th May, 1963 under the second proviso to rule 3(3)(b)  of the Seniority Rules, "as they stood in May, 1963". Accordingly,  Shri Singh was allowed the year of 1956 and placed above Shri Bhanot.      Old rule  3(3)(b) of  the Seniority Rules applicable in this case has been set out hereinbefore. It was urged before the Division  Bench that nowhere rule 3(3)(b) and the second proviso  thereto  in  particular  excludes  the  officiating period of deputation. In this connection reliance was placed on the  decision of  the Division  Bench in the case of Arun Ranjan Mukherjee v. Union of India and others (supra). In as much as  good deal  of reliance  was placed  by the Division Bench as  well as  by the  appellant before  us on  the said decision. It  may be  mentioned that  the appellant  in that case joined the Indian Army as a Commandant Officer in 1942. He became  a Major  in 1945.  His services  were lent to the state of  West Bengal and accordingly on 10th January, 1949, he was  posted as  a Commandant  of the Special Armed Police Battalion, a  post corresponding  to a  senior post  in  the I.P.S. The  said appellant with his consent was appointed to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

the West  Bengal State  Police Service on 1st July, 1953. On 8th September, 1954, the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954,  Indian Police  Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and the Indian Police (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 were framed by the Government of India under section 3 of the All India Services Act 61 of 1951. On 6th June, 1955, the Indian Police Service  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 were also  issued under  which 25%  of the senior posts were allotted to  the Indian  Police Service cadre in each State. The appointment  of the  appellant was outside the quota. On 31st July, 1958, the appellant was appointed on probation in the State  cadre of  West Bengal.  In December,  1959 he was substantively appointed  to a  senior  post  in  the  Indian Police Service  and confirmed  thereon with effect from 21st July, 1958.  In December, 1958, the Ministry of Home Affairs conveyed to  the Government  of West  Bengal its decision to fix the  pay of  the appellant  in the  senior scale  of the Indian Police  Service notionally  from 10th  January, 1949, the date  from which  he held an Indian Police Service Cadre post continuously.  On 19th January, 1960, the Indian Police Service (Seniority  of Special  Recruits)  Regulations  1960 were framed  pursuant to  rule 5-A of the Seniority Rules on 11th October, 859 1960, the Government of India in consultation with the Union Public Service  Commission decided to allot to the appellant the year  1948.  The  year  of  allotment  was  subsequently changed to  1947 on  the basis  that the  officiation of the appellant as well as that of the junior most direct recruit, in a  senior scale  did not start before 19th May, 1951. The appellant filed  a writ  petition under  Article 226  of the Constitution.  The   learned  single   judge,  allowing  the petition, held  that  the  date  from  which  the  appellant continuously officiated  was 10th  January,  1949  and  that accordingly the  year 1943  allotted to  D  the  Junior-most direct recruit,  should also  be allotted  to the appellant. The learned Single Judge also held that the first and second proviso to  rule 3(3)(b)  of the  Seniority Rules  were  not applicable to  the appellant.  The Division  Bench in appeal agreed with  the learned  single judge,  that  the  date  of continuous officiation  of the  appellant was  10th January, 1949. But the High Court thought that the year 1947 allotted to the  appellant on  the basis of his officiation from 19th May, 1951 could not be sustained because the latter date had been held by this Court to be irrelevant in the case of D.R. Nim, I.P.S.  v. Union  of India,  [1967] 2 SCR 325. Non-the- less the year of allotment 1948 assigned to the appellant in the order of 11th October, 1960 was sustained because it was on an  ad hoc  basis. Against  the High  Court’s  order  the appellant appealed  to this  Court. He  urged under the main clause of  rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules the year 1943 should be allotted to him as the said year had been allotted to D  the junior  most direct  recruit and  that  the  first proviso to  rule 3(3)(b)  did not apply to him as it applied only to those in the joint cadre; and that this Court should deduct the  ’P’ factor from the date of officiation which as held by  the High  Court was 10th January, 1949 and allot to him the  year 1943  as the  year of  allotment.  This  Court dismissed the  appeal and  held that  D was an Indian Police Officer recruited  in 1945. He became a member of the Indian Police Service  under sub-rule(1)  of rule  3 of  the Indian Police Service  (Recruitment) Rules,  1954 on  the date when the said  Rules came  into force  in 1954,  and was  not  an officer recruited  to the  service in accordance with rule 7 of those  Rules. The year of allotment assigned to D was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

therefore available  to the appellant under the main part of rule 3(3)(b).      This Court  further held that the first proviso to rule 3 nowhere  referred or  even remotely  indicated that it was only applicable  to the  persons in the joint cadre. In fact rule 2(1) of the Seniority Rules and the words "State cadre" and "joint  cadre" had  been defined  as having  the meaning respectively assigned  to them  in the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules,  1954. By  reference to  rule 7  of the Cadre Rule it is 860 apparent that  what is  to be  determined is  the  authority which is  to appoint,  to the  respective cadres i.e. in the case of  State Cadre  it is  the State Government and in the case of  Joint Cadre  it is  the State Government concerned. The first  proviso did  not refer  to any appointment to any cadre it  only dealt  with Regulation  of Seniority  and the reference to  State Government  concerned is for the purpose of fixing  the date  of officiation  ad hoc  in consultation with the  Central Government.  When there  are several State Governments the  consultation by the Central Government must necessarily  be  with  the  State  Government  concerned  in relation to  the officer  who was  appointed to the cadre of that State.  Whether the first proviso applied or the second proviso applied,  it was  the Central Government that had to determine ad  hoc, the year of allotment after approving the period  of  officiation  in  consultation  with  the  Public Service Commission.  This Court further held that in view of the judgment  in Nim’s case (supra) the order assigning 1947 as the year of allotment to the appellant on the basis of an arbitrary date  of officiation namely 19th May, 1951 was bad and  had  been  quite  properly  struck  down  by  the  High Court.The High Court however had no power to direct the year 1948  to   be  fixed  as  the  year  of  allotment  for  the determination of the seniority of the appellant on the basis that that  was fixed  on an  ad  hoc  basis  in  an  earlier occasion by  the Government of India. Once the Government of India had  on a  memorial presented by the Appellant decided finally in  supersession of  its previous  decision that his year of  allotment was  1947, the previous decision fixed on ad hoc basis could not be revived. It was for the Government of India  in consultation with the Commissioner to determine ad hoc the year of allotment to be assigned to the appellant in relation  to the date of his continuous officiation. This Court would  not  trespass  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the Government of India to determine ad hoc in consultation with the Commission on a consideration of the relevant materials, the date  of  the  appellant’s  continuous  officiation  and assign him  a year  of allotment. This Court reiterated that it was  for  the  Central  Government  to  examine  year  of allotment after  approving  the  period  of  officiation  in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.      It may be relevant to mention that this Court noted the observations of  the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court  which was  under appeal  in that  case and noted that there was nothing in clause (b) of the said Rules which showed that  while  officiating  in  a  "senior  post",  the officer concerned must be an officer belonging substantially to the  State Police Service in question and could not be an officer on  deputation from some other service. It was urged before the Divi 861 sion Bench  that this  Court had  approved the  view of  the Calcutta High Court that benefit of the period of deputation should be  given to  Shri Mukherjee.  The Division Bench was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

unable to accept the position. The Division Bench was of the view that  this Court  had reiterated  that it  was relevant material which  had to  be taken  into consideration  by the Government of  India but  it was for Government to determine in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission the date of  a person’s continuous officiation and assign to him a year  of allotment  and the High Court as such had no such power.      The Division  Bench was  of the  view that  the learned single judge of the High Court was right that this Court had not given  any decision  whether the period of deputation of Shri Mukherjee  in that  case before his absorption could be taken into  account in  assigning the  year of  allotment to him. The  learned single  judge in  Chambers as noted by the Division Bench  further found  support  to  this  view  with reference to  relevant noting  in the file of Shri Mukherjee which was  produced before  the learned  single judge.  Rule 3(3)(b) of  the Seniority  Rules and  the  provisos  thereto should not be read in isolation. This rule is in the setting of other  rules. The  Cadre rules  read with  Indian  Police Service (Fixation  of Cadre  Strength) Regulations  of  1955 fixed the  strength of  the Indian Police cadre of the Union Territories a  particular figure. Out of them, not more than 25% officers  eligible for  recruitment to  the I.P.S. cadre had to be the substantive members of the State (U.T.) Police Service at  that time.  The scheme  as it  stood, fixed  the strength of  the I.P.S.  cadre  State-wise.  Recruitment  by promotion thereto could only be from the substantive members of the  Police Service  of that particular State. So long as Shri Singh  remained as  a substantive  member of  the  U.P. State Police  Service, he  could not possibly be promoted to the joint I.P.S. cadre of the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. He became eligible to his promotion to the Union Territory I.P.S. Cadre only after he had been absorbed in the  Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police Service. Proviso (1) to  Rule 3(3)(b)  of the  Recruitment Rules gave a clear indication that for determining the year of allotment ad hoc the  Central   Government  consulted  the  State  Government concerned. In  Explanation (2) again, there was reference to a certificate  by the  State Government  concerned  that  an officer would  have officiated  in a senior post but for his absence on  leave or  appointment to any special post. It is apparent therefore  that the State Government is the one, of the Police  Service of  which the  Officer  concerned  is  a substantive member.  In this  case as  found by the Division Bench, Shri Singh had not chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police Service and he 862 had gone back to his parent State of U.P. In case Shri Singh had not  chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police  Service and  he had  gone back  to his  parent State of  U.P., then  according to  Explanation (2) the U.P. State  Government  might  have  issued  the  certificate  to facilitate his  promotion to  the I.P.S.  cadre of  the U.P. State. The  Promotion  Regulation  of  1955  laid  down  the determination of  the eligibility of a substantive member of the State  Police Service.  Thereafter,  the  names  of  the eligible officers  were brought  on the  Select List,  which were to  be approved  by  the  commission.  Appointments  by promotion to the I.P.S. cadre are made from the Select List. In the  event of  promotion,  but  for  second  proviso  the benefit of  continuous officiation  on  a  senior  post  for fixing his year of allotment is given to an officer from the date after  his being  nominated  on  the  Select  List.  In Explanation (1)  of rule  3(3), there  is  no  mention  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

deputationist before  his absorption  in  the  State  Police Service can get the benefit of such officiation. That is the position.  Therefore   before  his  absorption,  it  is  not possible to accept the position that Shri Singh was entitled to the  benefit of  his officiation.  The Division  Bench so held. We  are of  the opinion  that the  Division Bench  was right on this aspect of the matter. It may be mentioned that Seniority Rules  1954 including  rule 3(3)(b)  quoted  above were amended with effect from 22nd April, 1967.      Before the  amendment, the  appellant Shri  Singh,  had been confirmed in the Union Territory cadre of Indian Police Service with  effect  from  14th  May,  1964  and  had  been allotted 1958 as the year. The first representation was made by him  in August,  1969 and  the second  in June, 1970. The second proviso  to old  seniority rule  3(3)(b) referred  to hereinbefore  had  laid  down  that  where  a  promotee  had officiated continuously  in a  senior post prior to the date of inclusion  of his  name in  the Select  List prepared  in accordance with  the Promotion Regulations, he could get the benefit of  such officiation  if  approved  by  the  Central Government  in   consultation  with   the  Commission.   The Seniority Rules as amended in 1967, however, did not provide for  such  approval.  Hence,  after  the  amendment  of  the Seniority Rules, the Central Government was not empowered to grant the  approval as  aforesaid in favour of Shri Singh in November, 1972.  This was  the submission  on behalf  of the respondent, Shri  Bhanot. The  argument was  not accepted by the Division Bench because the question of allotment of Shri Singh in  accordance with the Seniority Rules ripened before the amendment  of 1967.  There  is  no  rule  vitiating  the operation of  the old  seniority rules. As a matter of fact, the party  had proceeded all along in this case on the basis that the old seniority rules applied. 863      In Government  of India  and Anr.  v. C.A. Balakrishnan and Ors.,  [1975] 1  SLR 31 this question was considered. In that case  the promotion  in question  was made in November, 1957. The  change in the relevant rules of promotion came in September, 1960.  This Court  affirmed the  decision of  the High Court  and held  that in  November, 1957  the  post  in question  was  a  selection  post  and  that  the  basis  of seniority-cum-fitness introduced  by the  amendment rules in September, 1960 was not applicable. The question, therefore, was held to be governed by the old rules. The Division Bench held that  the second  representation made by Shri Singh was barred.      As mentioned  hereinbefore, in  support of  the appeal, the appellant submitted that the Division Bench was in error in not  following the  ratio of  the decision in the case of Arun Ranjan  Mukherjee (supra). We are unable to accept this submission. Arun  Ranjan Mukherjee’s  case proceeded  on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of D.R. Nim, I.P.S.v. Union  of India  (supra). There under rule 3 of the Indian Police  Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 issued under  section 3(1)  of the  All India  Services Act, 1951, the  mode of  determining the seniority of officers of the Indian  Police Service  was laid  down. It  was provided that the  officers were divided into categories: namely, (1) those in  the Service  at the commencement of the Rules, and (2) those appointed to the Service after the commencement of the Rules.  The second  category was  divided into  two sub- categories: namely,  (a) officers appointed as a result of a competitive  examination,  and  (b)  officers  appointed  by promotion in  accordance with  rule  9  of  the  Recruitment Rules. The  year of allotment of an officer which determined

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

his seniority,  was determined  according to rule 3(3)(a) or (b)  of  the  present  rules.  But  if  an  officer  started officiating continuously  in  a  senior  post  from  a  date earlier than  the date  on which  any of  the  officers  was recruited  to  the  Service  by  competition,  the  year  of allotment had  to  be  determined  ad  hoc  by  the  Central Government under  proviso (1)  to  rule  3(3)(b)  and  under proviso (2)  to rule  3(3)(b),  the  period  of  officiation before the  date of  inclusion of  the name of an officer in the Select List prepared in accordance with the requirements of the  Indian Police  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulations  would  be  counted  only  if  such  period  was approved by  the Central Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission.      In  that   case  the   appellant  was   officiating  as Superintendent of Police from June, 1957 that is from a date earlier  than   the  date   of  any   officer  recruited  by competition, and  was appointed to the Indian Police Service by promotion in 1955 after the commencement of the Seniority Rules. His name was included in the Select List in 1956. The 864 government passed  an  order  on  25th  August,  1955,  that officers promoted  to the  Indian Police  Service should  be allowed the  benefit of  their continuous  officiation  with effect only  from 19th  May, 1951.  The appellant challenged the order  by a  petition under  Article 226 before the High Court because  the period of his officiation from June, 1947 to May, 1951 was excluded for the purpose of fixation of his seniority. The High Court dismissed the petition. This Court under appeal held that the impugned order dated 25th August, 1955 should  be quashed  and the Central Government directed to fix  the year of allotment and seniority of the appellant according to  the law.  The date 19th May, 1951 in that case was an  artificial and  arbitrary date  having nothing to do with the application of the first and second proviso to rule 3(3). It  has some  relevance for  the Indian Administrative Service, but  why it  should be applied to the Indian Police Service  was   not  adequately   explained.  Under  the  two provisos, this  Court held,  the Central  Government had  to determine ad  hoc the  year of  allotment after approving or not approving the period of officiation in consultation with the Public  Service Commission taking into consideration all the relevant facts. The Central Government cannot pick out a date and  say that  a period prior to that date would not be deemed to  be approved  by the Central Government within the second proviso.  In view of the fact that he was officiating for eight  years, that he was never reverted and that he was appointed to  the post  when vacancies fell, it could not be held that  the appellant’s  continuous  officiation  a  mere temporary or  local  or  stop-gap  arrangement,  within  the meaning of Explanation (1) to rule 3(3)(b).      In the  instant case,  the Central  Government had  not fixed the  date of appellant’s absorption in the Select List as 1958  out of  the hat  so to  say. It had relevance as it appears  from   the  basis  of  the  order  of  the  Central Government.  In   this  case,   the  appellant   who  was  a deputationist before  the absorption  in  the  State  Public Service could  not be  entitled to  get such officiation. In case Shri  Singh had  not chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh  State Police  Service and he had gone back to his  parent State  of U.P., then according to explanation (2), U.P. State Government might have issued the certificate to facilitate  his promotion to the I.P.S. cadre of the U.P. State. But  so long  as Shri  Singh remained  a  substantive member of  the U.P.  State  Police  Service,  he  could  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

possibly be  permitted to  join I.P.S.  cadre of  the  Union Territories of  Delhi and  Himachal Pradesh.  In  accordance with the  rules, he  became eligible to his promotion to the Union Territory I.P.S. cadre only after he had been absorbed in Delhi Himachal Pradesh Police Service. 865      Reading the  rules with  which we  are concerned  which state that certain year should be assigned by the Government in consultation  with  Public  Service  Commission  must  be interpreted in  the light  of the  well-established rule  of construction  that   if  the  words  of  a  statute  are  in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound  these words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words  themselves in  such a  case  best  declaring  the intention of  the legislature.  See in  this connection  the observations of  this Court  in The  Collector  of  Customs, Baroda  v.   Digvijaysinhji   Spinning   &   Weaving   Mills Ltd.,[1962] 1 SCR 896 at 899.      This Court  in Ram  Prakash Khanna  and others  etc. v. S.A.F. Abbas  and others etc., AIR 1972 SC 2350 dealing with the aforesaid rule proviso 2, observed that under the second proviso  to   Rule  3(3)(b)  a  promotee  could  obtain  the advantage of officiation continuously in a senior post prior to the  inclusion of  the name  in the  Select List  if  the period of  such  officiation  is  approved  by  the  Central Government in  consultation with  the Union  Public  Service Commission.  This   Court  reiterated   that   approval   as contemplated in  Rule 3(3)(b)  is a specific approval and is directed to  the particular  matter mentioned  therein as to whether there  was approval  of the  period  of  officiation prior to  the inclusion in the names in the select list. The officiation in  a senior  post is  one of  the indispensable ingredients in  the application of rule 3(3)(b). But it must be borne  in mind  that this  was not  a sine  qua non. This Court found on the materials in the appeal before this Court in that  case that  it could  not be  held that  the Central Government gave  any approval in consultation with the Union Public Service  Commission to have the benefit of the period claimed by  the appellant.  In the  instant case, before the absorption of  the appellant  in the Himachal Pradesh-Delhi, I.P.S. Cadre,  his officiation  had not  been taken  by  the Central Government  into consideration. We are unable to say that the Central Government had not acted properly.      This appeal  is not  concerned with  the assignment  of year 1958  to Shri  Singh but rule 16 clause (1)(iii) of the Service Rules  provides for certain penalties and one of the penalties, inter  alia, is  the effect of superseding him in promotion to  a Selection Post and as such is appealable. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right that appeal does not  necessarily lie  only against  the order  imposing penalty and  is also  open  to  entertain  appeal  when  the service rule  was interpreted  to the disadvantage of member of the  service but  rule 17 bars the filing of appeal after the expiry  of 45  days. Proviso  to the said rule, however, gives discretion  to the  appellate authority to condone the delay if 866 sufficient cause  is shown.  Rule 24  of All  India Services (Discipline and  Appeal) Rules,  1969  provides  for  review within different  periods. Under  that rule since Shri Singh could have  filed an application for review within one year, in this  case remedy of review by Shri Singh had also become barred when  the second  order was passed. Rule 25 regulates memorials. It reads as follows:           "A member  of the  Service shall  be  entitled  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

         submit a  memorial to  the President  against  any           order of  the  Central  Government  or  the  State           Government by  which  he  is  aggrieved  within  a           period of three years from the date of the passing           of such order.      It appears  that there  is provision  for appeal in the order of  this nature.  Failure to prefer an appeal or apply for review  was no bar to the submission of memorials to the President. In  December, 1963  in  this  case  the  year  of allotment was  assigned to  Shri Singh.  Shri Singh made the first representation  in August,  1969, after  the period of limitation had expired.      It was  contended, however,  on behalf of the appellant relying on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  in Sunder Lal and others v. The State of Punjab, [1970] SLR 59 that in a case of bona fide mistake, there was always the  power to  rectify. It  was emphasised that every administrative authority  has an  inherent right  to rectify its own  mistakes. So  far  as  fixing  the  year  1957  was concerned, we  are unable  to accept  the submission.  It is doubtful that  inherent power can be invoked, if there is no reason for refixing the appellant’s year of 1957. If belated claims are allowed arbitrarily, an atmosphere of uncertainty would prevail. There should be no sense of uncertainty among public service. Furthermore it is clear that if the fixation of  year   1958  allotment   is   a   mistake,   the   first representation was rejected with the order dated 23rd April, 1970 which has been set out in extenso in the judgment under appeal. There  the Government’s  order  reiterates  that  in accordance with  the order  contained in the Home Ministry’s letter to  which reference  is made, all cadre posts held by non-cadre officers  not on  the Select  List were  deemed to have been  kept in abeyance with effect from 27th September, 1961 onwards. As such Shri Singh could not have claimed that he was  officiating in the cadre post prior to coming on the Select List. In those circumstances, Shri Singh could not be deemed to  have officiated  in cadre  post during the period 6th December,  1961 to  14th May,  1963. The  order  further reiterated  that  according  to  the  seniority  rules,  the service rendered  by an  officer prior  to inclusion  in the Select List  could  not  be  counted  for  seniority  unless approved by the Central Government in consultation 867 with the  Union Public  Service Commission. It is clear that the Central  Government was  of the view that decision taken by it  in 1963,  fixing  the  said  year  of  allotment  was correct. Good  and cogent  reasons were  given for it. It is true that the Home Ministry’s letter referred to in annexure R-4 has  been quashed  by the  Delhi High Court but the same has no  bearing on  the correctness of the decision taken by the Central Government in 1963, because at the relevant time the letter was there and the Central Government was bound to act in  accordance thereto.  The contention of the appellant that there  was no period of limitation for the grant of the approval is  not relevant.  It is therefore clear that there was no  scope of the acceptance of second representation. In the said order there is no mention of any mistake.      When the  first order  was made,  it may be that it was not necessary to give any notice to Shri Bhanot but when the second order  was made  it affected  adversely  Shri  Bhanot because he  in the  meantime having  been  absorbed  in  the I.P.S.  in   1957.  In  our  opinion  it  is  not  that  the constitutionality of any provision was challenged as was the case in A. Janardhana v. Union of India and Others, [1983] 2 SCR 936 at 967 and in General Manager, South Central Railway

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

Secundrabad and Anr. etc. v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and Ors. etc., [1974] 3  SCR 207,  it was held that those would be affected by the  grant of  the year  of seniority  need not  join  as party. But  the position here is different. Here Shri Bhanot would be  adversely affected  and  his  seniority  would  be affected and  here the change was sought from the Government reversing the  previous decision  and in  the meantime  Shri Bhanot has  acquired a  year of allotment. Therefore, in our opinion it should have been done upon notice to Shri Bhanot. In any  case, Shri  Bhanot has been heard. Our attention was drawn to  certain observations of Administrative Law Cases & Materials, second  edition by  Peter Brett and Peter W. Hogg on the nature of appeal and in the light of the view we have taken,  it   is  not   necessary  to   refer  to   the  said observations.      In the  aforesaid view  of the  matter we  are  of  the opinion that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein. We, however, having regard to the  facts  set  out  hereinbefore,  direct  the  Central Government that  the salary scale of the appellant should be refixed taking into consideration the appellant’s service in U.P. and  Himachal Pradesh cadre in the senior position as a deputationist.      The  appeals   are,  therefore,   dismissed  with   the aforesaid directions without any order as to costs. S.L.                                 Appeals dismissed. 868