- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This bunch of 22 appeals and one writ petition raise the traditional tangle of inter se seniority between the Indian Police Service Direct 9 Recruits and U. P. State Police Service, Special Grade Deputy Superintendents of Police for short 'promotees'. It is not necessary to detail myriad facts in all the appeals but shortly stated the facts in Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1989 are sufficient to decide the controversy by a common judgment. The appellants were direct recruits of the years 1970 and 1973 into Indian Police Service and were allotted to U. P. cadre. Respondents 3 to 9, Triveni Kumar Joshi and others were appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police between 12/07/1961 to Jul 7/07/1963 a in substantive capacity in State Service and were promoted between October 4, 197 3/06/1975 to perform the duties of the cadre posts of Superintendents of Police. They continued to occupy the said posts till they were included in the select-list (respondent 3 in 1977, respondents 4 to 9 in 1978 and were later appointed and confirmed in the Indian Police Service w. e. f. various date between 29/07/197 8/12/1980.
(3.) When the inter se seniority list was prepared and published on 24/04/1977 showing the respondents as juniors to the appellants, they represented to the government of India that since they had continuously officiated on the cadre posts without break from the respective dates of promotion, their entire continuous officiating period should be counted towards seniority in Indian Police Service. They requested to redetermine their seniority giving them years of allotment from the respective dates of continuous officiation dating back to 1968, 1969 and 1970 to respondents 3,4,5,6 and 7 to 9 respectively. The State government rejected their claim in 1980. Preceding thereto some of their senior promotees filed writ petition Nos. 4490-4499 of 1980 and 5128-29 of 1980 in this court questioning the validity of Rule 3 (3 (b) and 2 (g) of INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 for short 'seniority Rules' and Regulation 5 of INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 for short the 'promotion Regulations' claiming the same relief. A bench of three Judges of this court directed the central government to determine the year of allotment of each of the respondents in accordance with Rule 3 (1 of the Seniority Rules and also the question as to whether they were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation on the posts of Superintendent of Police under Rule 3 (3 (b) of the Seniority Rules in the light of the decisions in Union of India v. G. N. Tiwari Narender Chadha v. Union of India and other decisions interpreting the analogous provisions of the All India Services Act, 1951 and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder. After giving sufficient opportunity to the promotees and the direct recruits and considering the material, the central government by Order dated July I, 1986 fixed the seniority and had given them 1968, 1970 and 1972 as years of allotment respectively the details thereof do not bear relevance to disposal of the appeals. Challenging the correctness thereof Bhupinder Singh and others filed 0. A. No. 583 of 1986 in the central Administrative tribunal at Allahabad. When it came up before a bench of two members, the judicial member held that by operation of Explanation 1 to Rule 3 (3 (b) of the Seniority Rules, the promotees are entitled to get seniority from the date of inclusion of their names in the select-list. The officiation period has to be counted only from that date. The year of allotment underrule 3 (1 read with Rule 3 (3 (b) of the Seniority Rules should be drawn accordingly bringing on notional list for 1971, 1975 and 1976. The administrative member held that by conduct, the central government a must be deemed to have relaxed the requirement of Explanation 1 to Rule 3 (3 (b) of the Seniority Rules as the State government did not prepare the select-list for the years 1971, 1975 and 1976 and by non action the rule regulating seniority had been broken down and accordingly directed to prepare the seniority list, counting their continuous officiation from the date of their initial promotions. On reference, the Vice-Chairman agreed with the administrative member and accordingly directed the government of India to prepare the seniority list afresh. This is the subject-matter in C. A. No. 1382 of 1987 and Union of India filed C. A. No. 1383 of 1987. The central government, however, considered afresh and fixed seniority again on 24/04/1987 showing them as juniors to the appellants, which was impugned in 0. A. No. 676 of 1987 and was allowed. Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1989 arises against it. Union of India filed C. A. No. 1801 of 1989. Following that order in the main judgment dated 12/12/1988 in O. A. No. 583 of 1986, the CAT at Allahabad practically reiterated the same view and directed the central government in all other cases to prepare the seniority list afresh whether they officiated either in the cadre posts or ex-cadre posts. Thus all the appeals are before us by special leave.;