- (1.)The Petitioner assails order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting Bilaspur in Original Application No. 660 of 2013. The Tribunal held that the Respondents had given correct weightage for seniority to the Petitioner based on years of service under Rule 3(3)(3)(ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Seniority Rules') as amended vide notification dated 18.4.2012 retrospectively. The allotment of seniority to the Petitioner from the year 2002 consequent to his selection by promotion to the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IPS') in the select list of 2009 under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Regulations') called for no interference.
(2.)Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 28.10.1985. The Respondents considered him for appointment in the IPS Cadre under the Regulations at the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting dated 11.3.2011 for the select list of the year 2009, pursuant to the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 15798 of 2009 (Parveen Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission) affirmed by the Supreme Court. In accordance with the law laid down in Parveen Kumar the eligibility for selection was to be considered as on the 1st of January to which the select list related based on assessment of vacancy as on 31st December of the year concerned. The Respondents therefore rightly considered the Petitioner for the select list of 2009 instead of 2010 as was being done by them earlier.
(3.)The select list was not prepared annually as required by the Regulations. The departmental promotion committee which met on 11.3.2011, by a fiction was considering the eligibility of the Petitioner for promotion as in the year 2009. The Notification for promotion was issued on 2.9.2011. If the consideration was by a fiction, the fiction had to be taken to its logical conclusion by applying the principles for grant of seniority in reckoning weightage in accordance with the Seniority Rules as it stood in 2009. The Respondents in their counter affidavit did not deny that the Petitioner was entitled to weightage of eight years of service under the Seniority Rules. Any subsequent amendment made to the Seniority Rules on 18.4.2012 could not be applied retrospectively, more so when the amendment was clearly prospective in nature. The Petitioner could not be promoted to IPS cadre in the select list of 2009 and seniority granted in accordance with the law as amended in 2012. The Tribunal committed gross error in holding that the Respondents had correctly given retrospective effect to the amendment notification dated 18.4.2012 when the amendment itself stated that it was prospective in nature.