Case: D.R. Nim, I. P. S Vs. Union Of India

The appellant was appointed to the U. P. Police Service as a result of a competitive examination held in 1938. In course of time he was appointed officiating Superintendent of Police with effect from June 25, 1947. He continued to officiate till he was appointed to the Indian Police Service against the promotion quota of the Indian Police Service Cadre of Uttar Pradesh with effect from October 22, 1955. By the time he was appointed to the Indian Police Service various Rules and Regulations governing the Indian Police Service had been issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the All India Services Act (LXI of 1951)

Court's reasoning:
. According to the facts of this case, the first proviso applies and not the test provided in R. 3 (3) (b) of the Seniority Rules. The second proviso limits the operation of the first proviso by dividing the officiating period into two classes: first, a period before the date of inclusion of an officer in the Select List, and secondly, the period after that date. The first period can only be counted if such period is approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission. The appellants name was included in the Select List of 1956. Therefor, in the case of the appellant the period prior to 1956 had to be approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission.It would be noticed that the date May 19, 1951, to begin with, had nothing to do with the finalisation of the Gradation List of the Indian Police Services because it was a date which had reference to the finalisation of the Gradation List for the I.A.S. Further this date does not seem to have much relevance to the question of avoiding the anomalous position mentioned in Para. 9 of the affidavit, reproduced above. This date was apparently chosen for the I.A.S. because on this date the Gradation List for all the earlier persons recruited to the Service had been finalised and issued in a somewhat stable stage. But why should this date be applied to the Indian Police Service has not been adequately explained. Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, the learned counsel for the appellant, strongly urges that selection of May 19, 1951, as a crucial date for classifying people is arbitrary and irrational. We agree with him in this respect. It further appears from the affidavit of Mr. D. K. Guha, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated December 9, 1966, that "the Government of India have recently decided in consultation with the Ministry of Law that the Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. 2/32/51-AIS, dated the 25th August 1955, will not be applicable to those SCS/SPS officers, who were appointed to IAS/IPS prior to the promulgation of IAS/IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, and the date of the issue of the above letter in their earlier continuous officiation was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Public Service Commission." It further appears that "in the case of Shri C. S. Prasad also, an IPS officer of Bihar, a decision has been taken to give the benefit of full continuous officiation in senior posts and to revise his year of allotment accordingly." But, it is stated that as Shri Nim was appointed to IPS on the 22nd October 1955, i.e., after the promulgation of IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, and after the issue of letter, dated 25th August 1955, his case does not fall even under this category."The above statement of the case of the Government further shows that the date, May 19, 1951, was an artificial and arbitrary date having nothing to do with the application of the first and the second proviso to R. 3 (3). It appears to us that under the second proviso to R. 3 (3) the period of officiation of a particular officer has to be considered and approved or disapproved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission considering all the relevant facts. The Central Government cannot pick out a date from a that - and that is what it seems to have done in this case - and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the secondour opinion, there is no force in this contention. As we have said, the Central Government must consider the question of approval of the officiation period and come to and an ad hoc decision after considering all the relevant circumstances in consultation with the State Government concerned and fix the year ofseems to us that the fixing of an artificial date, like May 19, 1951, as the date prior to which period of officiation would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government is contrary to R.statement is denied by the appellant. We agree with him that such a stop-gap arrangement cannot last for eight years and it has been shown that appellant was appointed temporarily in place of some persons as subsequently he has never been reverted. Further the fact that he was appointed to the post at the time when vacancies fell negatives that it was merely a temporary arrangements.