Quota-based seniority governs service ranks; long officiating appointments may count as regular service, but not replace statutory rota.

Appointments from a duly prepared Rule 24 list under Rule 25(1) are treated as regular service appointments, not as temporary local arrangements under Rule 25(3), where the officers are continued for long periods in officiating posts. The seniority rule under Rule 29(2)(c) then requires inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees to be fixed by rotation of vacancies according to the quota under Rule 5. Sporadic appointments made to meet service exigencies do not by themselves show a breakdown of the quota system, so length of service cannot displace the statutory rota unless a true breakdown is established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents' appointments fell under Rule 25(1) or Rule 25(3) of the DANI Police Service Rules, 1971 and whether they were to be treated as permanent appointees to the Service; (ii) Whether seniority had to be fixed on the basis of Rule 29(2)(c) by rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees or on the basis of length of service on the footing that the quota rule had broken down.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents' appointments fell under Rule 25(1) or Rule 25(3) of the DANI Police Service Rules, 1971 and whether they were to be treated as permanent appointees to the Service.

Analysis: Rule 25(1) applies where a member of the Service is not available and the post is filled from the list under Rule 15(4) or Rule 24. Rule 25(3) is confined to a purely local arrangement for a period not exceeding six months. The respondents' names were included in the Rule 24 list and their appointments were not temporary local arrangements. The selected officers under Rule 24 were treated as substantially on par with those selected under Rules 14 and 15, since the Rule 24 process also attracted consultation and approval requirements. Their long continuance in officiating posts, extending over many years, could not fairly be treated as a fleeting stopgap arrangement.

Conclusion: The respondents were appointed under Rule 25(1) and were to be treated as permanent appointees for service purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether seniority had to be fixed on the basis of Rule 29(2)(c) by rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees or on the basis of length of service on the footing that the quota rule had broken down.

Analysis: Rule 29(2)(c) expressly requires inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees to be determined by rotation of vacancies according to the quota under Rule 5. The record did not show a breakdown of the quota rule. Sporadic appointments made to meet exigencies of service did not amount to abandonment of the quota system. The basis of length of service could not therefore displace the statutory seniority scheme. At the same time, the respondents' officiating appointments were directed to be treated as the dates of their regular appointments for the purpose of applying Rule 29.

Conclusion: Seniority had to be fixed under Rule 29(2)(c) by rotation of vacancies, and not merely by length of service.

Final Conclusion: The appeal resulted in refixation of seniority in accordance with the statutory rota between direct recruits and promotees, while the respondents' long officiating service was recognized by treating their officiating appointments as regular appointment dates for that purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where officers are appointed from a duly prepared Rule 24 list under Rule 25(1) and continue in service for a long period, their appointments may be treated as regular for service purposes, but inter se seniority must still be determined by the mandatory quota-based rota under the governing seniority rule unless a true breakdown of the quota rule is established.

---