Arbitrary cut-off dates in seniority rules cannot replace individualized assessment of officiation periods under the governing scheme.

Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 required the Central Government to assess an officer's period of officiation on the facts of the individual case in consultation with the Commission; a fixed cut-off date could not displace that statutory inquiry. The exclusion of officiation before 19 May 1951 had no rational link to the rule and was held arbitrary. The officer's later claim that the officiation was merely a temporary or local arrangement under Explanation 1 also failed, because the surrounding facts did not establish a stop-gap appointment. Seniority and year of allotment therefore had to be reconsidered under the governing rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the selection of 19 May 1951 as a cut-off date for excluding earlier officiation from seniority and year of allotment was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954; (ii) whether the appellant's officiation in a senior post was merely a temporary or local arrangement within Explanation 1 to Rule 3.

Issue (i): whether the selection of 19 May 1951 as a cut-off date for excluding earlier officiation from seniority and year of allotment was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.

Analysis: Rule 3 required the Central Government to consider the officer's period of officiation and determine approval or disapproval on the facts of the individual case in consultation with the Commission. A rigid and artificial date could not be superimposed on that process. The exclusion of all officiation before 19 May 1951 bore no rational connection to the statutory scheme and was not justified by the materials relied upon.

Conclusion: The cut-off date was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3, and the appellant succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant's officiation in a senior post was merely a temporary or local arrangement within Explanation 1 to Rule 3.

Analysis: The claim of a stop-gap or temporary arrangement was not established. The officiation continued for a long period, and the surrounding facts did not support the view that the appellant held the post only as a temporary substitute or local arrangement.

Conclusion: The appellant's officiation was not shown to fall within Explanation 1, and the contention of temporary or local arrangement failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seniority order could not stand, and the appellant was entitled to reconsideration of his year of allotment and seniority in accordance with the governing rules and the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule requires individualized approval of an officer's officiation period for seniority purposes, the authority cannot replace that statutory assessment with a fixed arbitrary cut-off date; seniority must be determined by applying the rule to the relevant facts of the officer's case.

---