- (1.) Respondent 5, Durga Shanker Amist, filed a writ petition in the High court of Himachal Pradesh challenging his exclusion from the Select List for INDIAN POLICE SERVICE officers and the inclusion of the present appellant S. B. Dogra in the said list. His case was that he joined service as Deputy Superintendent of Police against a regular and permanent vacancy on 22/11/1967 in the erstwhile Joint Union Territories Cadre (Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service in short 'dhani Police Service') on his clearing the All-India competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in 1965. He was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh on 25/01/1971 after the formation of that State. He was confirmed in service on 24/09/1971 and was placed in the selection grade w. e. f. 4/05/1973 on which grade he was confirmed w. e. f. 24/06/1974. He was sent on deputation as Deputy central Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence Bureau, government of India, in April 1978 and was later transferred to Delhi where he served till September 1981. He returned to his parent cadre in September 1981 but soon thereafter in June 1982 he was appointed as Commandant, 1st Armed Police Battalion, Junga, on a cadre post where he served up to 14/11/1982. It may here be mentioned that his name was included by the Selection Committee which met on 25/10/1977 in the Select List of officers found suitable for promotion to the INDIAN POLICE SERVICE under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, (hereafter called 'the 1955 Regulations'). His name remained on the Select List from 1977 to 1981 but in the year 1982 his name came to be removed whereas the names of the other two officers, namely, the present appellant S. B. Dogra and B. C. Negi were included in the Select List.
(2.) The appellant S. B. Dogra (original respondent 3 was selected for Emergency Commission in the Indian Army in April 1963 and after successful completion of the training he was commissioned in September 1963. Later in May 1967 he was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police/company Commander in the Into-Tibetan Border Police, a Government of India Class I post. He was relieved from the Indian Army and was permanently absorbed in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police in November 1967. After the formation of the State of Himachal Pradesh he was allocated to the State Police Service w. e. f. 25/01/1971. In 1974 heappeared but could not clear the Himachal Pradesh State Service Examination. However, he succeeded in the second attempt in 1975 and was appointed against the vacancy reserved for 'demobilised Armed Forces Personnel' under the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 (as amended in 1974, (hereinafter called 'the 1972 Rules') and was given the benefit of his military service under clause (1 of Rule 5 of the said Rules. The said sub-rule reads as under: "The seniority and pay of the candidates who are appointed against the vacancies reserved under Rule 3 shall be determined on the assumption that they joined the service or the post, as the case may be, under the State government at the first opportunity they had after they joined the military service or training prior to the commission. "the tentative seniority list of the State Police Officers was circulated in 1977 wherein his name was shown three places above the name of the original petitioner respondent 5 D. S. Amist by assigning a deemed notional date of entry in service in the year 1964. Since respondent 5 had joined the State Service in 1967 he was shown three places below the appellant in the tentative seniority list of 31/03/1977. A final seniority list was prepared and published on 27/02/1979 showing the same position. Thereupon, one S. R. Thakur filed a Writ Petition No. 280 of 1978 in the High court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the seniority of the appellant. The High court upheld the seniority assigned to the appellant on interpretation of the 1972 Rules and dismissed the writ petition on 10/04/1981. A Letters Patent Appeal No. 18 of 1981 was filed but the same also came to be dismissed on 9/08/1985. Thus the seniority assigned to the appellant was judicially affirmed by the High court. After the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge but before the decision in L. P. A. No. 18 of 1981, the present respondent 5 without seeking impleadment in the said appeal moved a writ petition in the High court in 1983 claiming seniority over the appellant and sought consequential reliefs. That writ petition was transferred to the central Administrative tribunal under S. 29 (2 of the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985 and was numbered T-519 of 1986. The tribunal allowed that petition by its judgment and order dated 5/03/1987 and hence this appeal by the aggrieved party.
(3.) The other officer B. C. Negi (Respondent 5 in the tribunal) belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. He appeared in the all-India combined competitive examination held by the UPSC in 1965 and was offered appointment to a Grade II post in DHANI Service by letter dated 9/01/1967 which he accepted whereupon he was appointed onprobation w. e. f. 20/01/1967. He was confirmed as such w. e. f. September 24, 1971. He then reported for training at the central Police Training College, Abu, and on successful completion of training he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in which capacity he served till his allocation to H. P. Police Service w. e. f 25/01/1971. Being a member of the Scheduled Tribe his service was governed by Rule 20 of DHANI Service Rules which provided that such appointments "shall be subject to orders regarding special representation in services for Scheduled Tribes issued by the government of India from time to time". Besides, Rule 18 (c) of the H. P. Police Rules, 1973 which stipulated that the seniority of officers allocated under S. 40 (4 of the Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, whose seniority had been finalised shall remain unchanged. He, therefore, contended that his seniority which had already been determined by the application of Rule 20 read with Rule 18 (c) could not be altered or changed and, therefore, his inclusion in the Select List prepared by the Selection Committee at its meeting of 20/12/1982 was unassailable.;