Officiating service counts for seniority when appointments follow the rules and no statutory probation requirement exists.

Service rules that were materially similar were treated as pari materia, so the principle in Harish Chander Bhatia applied to appointments under the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965. Officers appointed on an officiating basis under Rule 24 after selection against vacancies were found to be appointed according to rules, not by a mere local arrangement. In the absence of any statutory probation requirement, later confirmation and the words "until further orders" did not defeat seniority from the date of officiating appointment. Continuous officiating service was therefore counted for seniority, and contrary executive practice could not override the rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 were in pari materia with the Delhi & Andaman & Nicobar Island Police Service Rules, 1971 so that the principle laid down in Harish Chander Bhatia applied; (ii) Whether officers appointed on officiating basis under Rule 24 were entitled to count that service for seniority from the date of such appointment, notwithstanding later confirmation and the State's contrary practice.

Issue (i): Whether the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 were in pari materia with the Delhi & Andaman & Nicobar Island Police Service Rules, 1971 so that the principle laid down in Harish Chander Bhatia applied.

Analysis: The relevant recruitment and officiating provisions in the two sets of rules were materially similar. The provisions governing selection, officiating appointments, and the preparation of lists under the rules showed no substantial difference in their basic structure. The earlier ruling in Harish Chander Bhatia, which treated Rule 24 selectees as standing on par with those selected through the regular selection channel, was therefore applicable to the Manipur Police Service Rules as well.

Conclusion: The rules were rightly treated as pari materia, and the principle in Harish Chander Bhatia applied to appointments made under the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965.

Issue (ii): Whether officers appointed on officiating basis under Rule 24 were entitled to count that service for seniority from the date of such appointment, notwithstanding later confirmation and the State's contrary practice.

Analysis: The appointment orders and the selection committee proceedings showed that the appellants were appointed under Rule 24 after consideration of merit and suitability against available vacancies, not by a mere local arrangement. In the absence of any rule prescribing probation for Inspectors of Police, the use of words such as "until further orders" could not convert an otherwise regular appointment into a temporary one for seniority purposes. Seniority normally follows length of service when appointment is made according to rules, and continuous officiating service cannot be ignored merely because confirmation came later. A contrary executive practice could not override clear rules or deprive employees of the benefit of service already rendered.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to have their officiating appointments treated as regular appointments for seniority purposes, with seniority refixed from the date of such officiating appointment.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Full Bench view was set aside, the appellants succeeded on the seniority question, and the consequential refixation of seniority and related benefits was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule scheme shows parity between selectees under the regular and officiating recruitment channels, and where appointment is made according to rules without any contrary statutory probation requirement, continuous officiating service under such appointment counts for seniority from the date of appointment.

---