UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARISHCHANDERBHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The perennial dispute of Service Law-inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits-has surfaced again in this appeal. This time the parties in dispute are officers belonging to DANI (Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands) Police Service (the Service). To resolve thelis we shall have to first determine as to when the respondents can be said to have become members of the Service and then we have to find out as to how they are to be placed in the seniority list to be prepared as required by Rule 29 of the DANI Police Service Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) While making appointments to the Service, proportion as specified in Rule 5 has to be borne in mind-which, under normal circumstances is 1: 1 qua promotees and direct recruits, which, however, for reasons to be recorded, may be varied in the exigency of public service. The respondents herein, who are 4 in number 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: