Year of allotment in IPS depends on select list, UPSC approval and rule-based appointment, not mere officiation or delayed meeting.

Annual preparation of the select list for appointment to the Indian Police Service is mandatory, but a State Police officer does not acquire a vested right to appointment, seniority, or an earlier year of allotment merely because the committee meeting was delayed or because of continuous officiation in State service. Year of allotment depends on inclusion in the select list, UPSC approval, and appointment under the prescribed rules. Here, the delay in convening the selection meeting was explained by the strike situation, the committee was eventually held, and the officer was placed in the select list and assigned seniority in accordance with the rules. The claim to an earlier year of allotment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to convene the annual selection meeting and prepare the select list on time entitled a promoted State Police officer to claim an earlier year of allotment in the Indian Police Service.

Analysis: The governing rules and regulations require the State Government to constitute the selection committee, prepare the select list ordinarily at intervals not exceeding one year, forward it to the UPSC for approval, and obtain appointment in accordance with the prescribed procedure before seniority and year of allotment can be claimed. Preparation of the select list annually is mandatory, but the officer does not acquire a vested right to appointment or to a particular year of allotment merely because he was substantively appointed in the State service or had been continuously officiating. Seniority and year of allotment depend upon inclusion in the select list, UPSC approval, and appointment under the rules. On the facts, the delay in holding the meeting was explained by the strike situation, the committee was ultimately convened, and the appellant was placed in the select list and given seniority according to the rules. The claimed earlier year of allotment was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to an earlier year of allotment, and the challenge to the assigned seniority failed.

---