Seniority and eligibility rules for deputationists: parent cadre service and analogous force service were countable, but retrospective notional appointment failed.

Service rendered in the parent police cadre could be counted toward the recruitment rule for appointment as Superintendent of Police, because the rule required eight years in the relevant grade and did not confine experience to the Central Bureau of Investigation; regular appointment, not permanent absorption, was sufficient, so eligibility was upheld. Retrospective notional appointment from an earlier date was unjustified because the selection postponement had valid administrative reasons and no legal basis for an earlier deemed date was shown. Service in the Border Security Force was also countable for seniority from the date of regular promotion to an analogous post, so the seniority arrangements were set aside and fresh lists directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the deputationist officer was eligible for appointment to the post of Superintendent of Police on the basis of service rendered in the State police service as well as in the Central Bureau of Investigation; (ii) whether the retrospective notional appointment to the post of Superintendent of Police from an earlier date was justified; and (iii) whether the petitioner's service in the Border Security Force had to be counted for determining seniority in the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the deputationist officer was eligible for appointment to the post of Superintendent of Police on the basis of service rendered in the State police service as well as in the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Analysis: The recruitment rule requiring eight years' service in the grade was construed as service in the grade of Deputy Superintendent of Police, not eight years only within the Central Bureau of Investigation. In the absence of an express restriction, service rendered in the parent State police service was held countable, subject to the requirement of probation in the Central Bureau of Investigation. The expression requiring service on a regular basis was understood as service in a regular appointment and not as service only after permanent absorption.

Conclusion: The officer was eligible for consideration and appointment to the higher post, and the challenge to eligibility failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective notional appointment to the post of Superintendent of Police from an earlier date was justified.

Analysis: Retrospective seniority can be granted only where the postponement or cancellation of the selection process is shown to be arbitrary or without justification and has caused prejudice. On the facts, the postponement of the selection meeting was found to have been supported by valid administrative reasons, and the later adverse grading was not treated as establishing any legal basis for giving the officer an earlier deemed date of appointment. The foundation for retrospective placement above the petitioners was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The retrospective notional appointment was unjustified and liable to be set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner's service in the Border Security Force had to be counted for determining seniority in the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Analysis: For seniority in a transferred or deputed equivalent post, the pre-existing length of service in the parent cadre was held to be relevant where the officer had been regularly promoted to an analogous post. The circulars relied upon to exclude such service were treated as unworkable and not acted upon. The petitioner's post in the Border Security Force was accepted as equivalent to the post in the Central Bureau of Investigation, and there was no legal basis to deny credit for the service rendered from the date of such regular promotion.

Conclusion: The petitioner's service in the Border Security Force had to be counted from the date of regular promotion, and he was entitled to seniority accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seniority arrangements were set aside, fresh seniority lists were directed to be issued, and the petitioners succeeded on the principal seniority disputes, with the remaining issue left open.

---