1994 (12) TMI 338 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules on seniority in DANI Police Service under Rule 25, stresses quota balance

Union of India And Another Versus Harish Chander Bhatia And Others

The court determined that the respondents became members of the DANI Police Service under Rule 25(1) and their seniority should be placed in accordance ... - Issues Involved:1. Determination of when the respondents became members of the DANI Police Service.2. Placement of respondents in the seniority list according to Rule 29 of the DANI Police Service Rules, 1971.3. Validity of appointments under Rule 25 and their impact on seniority.4. Application of the principle of rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Membership in the Service:The primary issue was to ascertain when the respondents became members of the DANI Police Service. The respondents were appointed after undergoing the selection procedure mentioned in Rule 24, and their appointments were made under Rule 25. The court had to determine whether these appointments were under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (3) of Rule 25. The court concluded that the respondents were appointed under sub-rule (1) as their names were included in the list prepared under Rule 24, and their appointments were not purely as a local arrangement for a period not exceeding six months.2. Placement in the Seniority List:The next issue was how to place the respondents in the seniority list as required by Rule 29. Rule 29(2)(c) states that the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees, based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under Rule 5. The court directed that the dates of officiating appointments of the respondents should be treated as the dates of their regular appointments, and their seniority should be interposed with direct recruits as per their respective inter se seniorities.3. Validity of Appointments under Rule 25:The court examined whether the respondents' appointments under Rule 25 could be considered permanent. Despite the appointments being officiating, they continued for a long period, with one respondent serving for about 12 years before being fixed permanently. The court held that such long-term officiating appointments should be treated as permanent to avoid serious prejudice to the service-holder and to preserve the efficient functioning of the Service. The court noted that appointments under Rule 25 are also to duty posts, which may form part of the strength of the Service as stated in Rule 4(3).4. Principle of Rotation of Vacancies:The court addressed the contention that seniority should not be determined based on continuous officiation but rather on the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees. The court acknowledged the importance of the quota rule in service jurisprudence, which allows a harmonious combination of fresh blood and old experience. The court rejected the argument that the quota rule had broken down, as only a few scattered appointments were made against the quota rule, which did not constitute a breakdown. The court distinguished the present case from the O.P. Singla case, where the breakdown of the quota rule was recognized due to the language of the service rule and the way appointments were made.Conclusion:The court directed the appellants to treat the dates of officiating appointments of the respondents as the dates of their regular appointments and to place them in the seniority list as required by Rule 29, interposing a direct recruit between two promotees as per their respective inter se seniorities. The court emphasized that employers should act as model employers and treat both wings of the Service fairly. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment delivered.