TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were appointed after they had gone through the procedure of selection mentioned in Rule 24. They admittedly did not come to be appointed as per Rule 16. They came to occupy the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, by virtue of what has been provided in Rule 25. We would be called upon to determine whether the respondents were appointed under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (3) of this rule. After having done so, we would be required to see as to how their seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits has to be determined. 3.Rules 4, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 29 of the Rules are relevant to determine the controversy at hand and they read as below: "4. Strength of the Service.- (1) The authorised permanent strength of the Service and the posts included therein shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) The number of selection grade posts in the Service shall be 13 per centof the authorised permanent strength of the Service. (3) The Central Government or the Administrator, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government, may, by order, create duty posts for such period as may be specified therein. 14. Conditions of Eligibility and Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Rules, 1965, shall be deemed to have been included in the same order in a list approved under sub-rule (4) of this rule. *Substituted w.e.f. 12.74 vide MHA Notification No. U14012/10/73-UTS, dated 2-12-1974. 16. Appointment to the Service.- Appointment to the Service shall be made in order of merit in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard to the proportion specified in Rule 5. 24. Selection for Officiating Appointment.-If at any time the Central Government is of the opinion that the number of officers available in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 for appointments to duty posts is not adequate having regard to the vacancies in such posts, it may direct the Committee to consider the case of officers who have officiated for a period of not less than three years in any of the cadres mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and prepare a separate list of officers selected. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects for officiating appointments to duty posts with due regard to seniority. The provisions of sub-rules (3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich they are recruited, those recruited on the basis of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of later examination. (b) The seniority inter se of persons recruited by selection shall be determined on the basis of the order in which their names are arranged in the list prepared under Rule 14, those recruited on the basis of an earlier selection being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of a later selection. (c) The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under Rule 5." 4. From the above, it is clear that for a person to be appointed under subrule (1) of Rule 25, he has to be an officer whose name is included in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 or one prepared under Rule 24. Insofar as sub-rule (3) is concerned, this requirement is not to be satisfied, and further, appointment under that sub-rule cannot exceed six months and is made as a local arrangement. The respondents are those whose names found place in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made when a member of the Service is not available. Though this is so, but the facts of the present case would show that though the appointments were stated to be officiating these continued for a very long period, which in the case of Respondent 1 was of about 12 years as he came to be appointed under Rule 25 on 6-11- 1972 and was fixed permanently in the slot meant for promotees on 28-7-1984. An officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with no service benefits to be given. Any other view would very seriously prejudice such a service-holder who, even after having rendered service equal to those of permanent appointees for a long period, and that too for proper functioning of the Service, would be denied the benefit of the same for no cogent reasons. Any other view is bound to have a demoralising effect in the Service as a whole. As the appointments under Rule 25 are also to duty posts, which may form part of the strength of Service because what has been stated in Rule 4(3), we are of the view that justice of the case and the need to preserve the efficient functioning of the Service would require to treat the appointments of the responden....