RAMCHANDRA DAYARAM GAWANDE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

RAMCHANDRA DAYARAM GAWANDE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Seniority and year of allotment for promotion to Indian Police Service cannot be claimed based merely on officiation or inclusion in the select list alone. Appointment to IPS by Central Government following approval by UPSC is the necessary requirement. The explainable delay in convening the selection committee and the subsequent procedure adopted were in accordance with statutory rules and precedents; thus, the assigned year of allotment to the appellant was not in error.

Parties
Appellant: Ramchandra Dayaram Gawande; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment by Promotion, Seniority, Allotment Year, Select List, Indian Police Service
Service Law Appointment by Promotion Seniority Allotment Year Select List Indian Police Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramchandra Dayaram Gawande

Appellant

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to convene a meeting for selection and preparation of the annual seniority list affects the seniority and year of allotment for a promotee to the Indian Police Service
  2. 2 Whether inclusion in the select list grants a substantive right to appointment and backdating of seniority

Ratio Decidendi

Seniority and year of allotment for promotion to Indian Police Service cannot be claimed based merely on officiation or inclusion in the select list alone. Appointment to IPS by Central Government following approval by UPSC is the necessary requirement. The explainable delay in convening the selection committee and the subsequent procedure adopted were in accordance with statutory rules and precedents; thus, the assigned year of allotment to the appellant was not in error.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals are dismissed. No costs.