Mandatory recruitment rules and quota limits control seniority; invalid special batch appointments could not gain prior service benefits.

Appointments made under the Assam Police Service Rules were found invalid because the special batch selection exceeded the five per cent quota and bypassed the mandatory recruitment procedure, including the prescribed recommendation and Selection Committee process. The Court held that such appointments were de hors the Rules, but they were not quashed because of the long delay and the service already rendered. Seniority was held to depend on valid appointment under the Rules, so the special batch recruits could not claim prior service benefits, nor could they rely on relaxation or deemed relaxation in the absence of a conscious, proper exercise of that power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the special batch selection and appointments under the Assam Police Service Rules, 1966 were valid and in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure and quota limits; (ii) whether the special batch recruits could claim seniority or the benefit of previous service under the seniority rule, including on the basis of relaxation or deemed relaxation.

Issue (i): Whether the special batch selection and appointments under the Assam Police Service Rules, 1966 were valid and in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure and quota limits.

Analysis: Recruitment under Rule 5(1)(c) was permissible only in special cases, subject to a strict ceiling of five per cent of the cadre strength and one post in any particular year. The selection in question exceeded that limit. The mandatory procedure under Rule 8, including recommendation through the prescribed authority and consideration by the Selection Committee, was not followed. The process was held to be arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme, and the Court agreed that the selection was made in violation of the Rules. At the same time, because of the long delay in challenging the appointments and the service already rendered, the appointments were not to be annulled.

Conclusion: The special batch selection was invalid and de hors the Rules, but the appointments were not quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the special batch recruits could claim seniority or the benefit of previous service under the seniority rule, including on the basis of relaxation or deemed relaxation.

Analysis: Seniority under Rule 18 was tied to the date of appointment to service. The proviso permitting consideration of previous service applied only where the recruitment itself was made in accordance with the Rules. Since the appointments were made in breach of the recruitment procedure and in excess of quota, the special batch recruits could not claim seniority on the basis of prior service. No order of relaxation had been shown, and the concept of deemed relaxation was rejected because the rule required conscious exercise of power by the Governor on a just and equitable basis, not a wholesale departure from the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion: The special batch recruits were not entitled to seniority over the direct recruits, nor to the benefit of previous service or deemed relaxation.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the seniority refixation in favour of the direct recruits was upheld, and the special batch recruits were denied the claimed seniority benefits while their appointments were left undisturbed because of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointments made in violation of a mandatory recruitment rule and in excess of quota cannot confer seniority or the benefit of prior service unless the statute itself authorises a valid relaxation applied on proper grounds.

---