M V CHANDRAKANTH vs HOME AFFAIRS on 23 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This OA has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:- “I) Call for records from the respondents pertaining to the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 (Annexure – A23); II) Issue writ or order quashing the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 bearing No. F. No. I-15011/07/2020 IPS-I (E) passed by the Respondent No. 1 in so far as the year of allotment of the applicant as 2013 in the cadre of Indian Police Service is concerned (Annexure – A23), in the interest of justice and equity; III) Direct the Respondent No.1 to fix the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Indian Police Service as against Select List – 2015 and assign the year of allotment as 2012 and grant all consequential benefits, which would

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja flow from such assignment of year of allotment, in the interest of justice and equity. IV) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this application.”

2. These reliefs are claimed on the following grounds and legal provisions:- “5.1) The impugned order dated 25/08/2022 is so far as assigning year of allotment as 2013 is wholly illegal and contrary to Rules, 1988 (ANNEXURE - A25). The Rules, 1988 regulates the method by which seniority is considered and provided to the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service. The Rule 3 (3) (ii) provides for the year of allotment to a promotee officer. The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 25/08/2022 fixing the seniority/ year of allotment of the Applicant appointed on promotion from State Police Service quota as the year 2013 is contrary to the Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1988. The Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1988 is as under:

3. Assignment of year of allotment.

(1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained in these rules.

(2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at the commencement of these rules shall be the same as has been assigned to him or may be assigned to him by the Central Government in accordance with the rules, orders and instructions in force immediately before the commencement of these rules.

(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows: -

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

(i) the year of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held: *(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the "Year for which" the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, upto the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the "Year for which"## the meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the following manner:- (a) for the service rendered by him upto twenty one years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years:

(b) He shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in sub- clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years. Explanation: For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause, fractions, if any, are to be ignored. Provided that he shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list.

The above Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Rules, 1988 provides for the method in which the year of allotment to a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja meeting of committee to make selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to service was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent rank. Additionally, Rule 3 (3) (ii) (a) provides for the manner in which weightage shall be given for the service rendered in the State Police Service. As per the rule, every promotee officer for the service rendered by them up to twenty-one years, shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years. In the instant case, the Applicant has served for a period of 9 years from the year 2006 to 2015, so considering the weightage, he shall be eligible for 3 years of weightage for the service rendered by him in the State Police Service. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the same while passing the impugned order whereunder the Applicant is assigned with the allotment year as 2013 whereas he should be assigned with the allotment year as 2012. The Respondent No. 1 without application of mind and without considering the above aspect has passed the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 assigning the year of allotment to the Applicant as 2013. Therefore, on this ground alone, the Impugned order dated 25/08/2022 is liable to be set aside.

5.2) The impugned order dated 25/08/2022 issued by the Respondent No. 1 is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.

dated 13/08/2021. The undisputed fact is that the Applicant was initially appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2006 thereafter was appointed as Assistant Commissioner/ Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) on 24/03/2017. The proposal emanates on 30/05/2017 for preparation of Select List 2015 for promotion to Indian Police Service. However, his name was deleted from the proposal and his batch mates were conferred Indian Police

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

Service on 21/07/2017 against Select List 2015 and they were assigned the year of allotment as 2012 vide order dated 21/08/2020. After losing the legal battle before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017, the lien of the Applicant is reverted to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 24/05/2021. The validity of the order dated 24/05/2021 was tested before the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which in turn directed the Respondent to revive the lien of the Applicant in the Department of Home and extend all consequential benefits to which he would be legally entitled to as if he is continued in the Department of Home with effect from 31/01/2006. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for all the benefits including seniority and year of allotment. Though the Application No. 1866/2021 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal substantial relief of revival of lien in the Department of Home and consequential benefits such as seniority was directed to be restored by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. In fact, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have revived the lien of the Applicant and restored the seniority in his favour. However, while conferring Indian Police Service his case is considered against Select List 2016 instead of Select List 2015.

5.3) The action of the Respondents denying the assignment of year of allotment as 2012 is contrary to law. The juniors of the Applicant have been assigned year of allotment as 2012 vide order dated 21/08/2020 whereas the Applicant is given the year of allotment as 2013. The seniority of the Applicant would be seriously affected for further promotion and it would dent his career. When the proposal is sent in the year 2017 for Indian Police Service, the same was denied to the Applicant and when the Applicant is conferred with Indian Police Service, the seniority is denied perpetuating the illegality. Therefore, the action of the Respondents is contrary to Articles 14 and 16

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside, 5.4) It is further contended that the assignment of the year of allotment shall be regulated having regard to the service rendered by the official in the State Police Service, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Admittedly, the name of the Applicant was included in the Select List of the year 2015 for promotion to Indian Police Service Cadre. The meeting of the selection committee was also held on 04/07/2017 approving the select list of the year 2015 under Regulation 7 (3) of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 to fill up 36 vacancies in the Karnataka Cadre of the Indian Police Service. Rule 3 (3) (ii) of Rules, 1988 regulates the assignment of year of allotment of a promotee officer and it shall be determined with reference to the year for which meeting of the committee to make selection, to prepare select list on the basis of which he was appointed to service, was held and with regard to continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, at that time he was appointed to the Karnataka Administrative Service under the notification dated 24/03/2017. Though the name of the Applicant was included for promotion to Indian Administrative Service subsequently his name was deleted for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service cadre under the letter dated 11/08/2020. Consequent to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 1866/2021, the lien of the Applicant is revived in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Department of Home, extending all consequential benefits to which he would have been legally entitled. The principles laid down in the case of BALRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS V. DR. ASHOK KHEMKA, I.A.S., and others reported in 2008 (5) SLR 758 would squarely apply to the facts of this case. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja gives a categorical finding that the year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the meeting of the committee was held for making selection. Therefore, the year of allotment assigned to the Applicant under the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained in law and is contrary to the Rule 3 (3) (ii) of Rules, 1988.

5.5) It is contended that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is even contrary to the proposal sent by the State Government. The State Government way back in the year 2017 itself had sent a proposal to the Selection Committee for preparation of the Select List of 2015 for promotion to Indian Police Service (Karnataka Cadre). The Respondent No. 2 directed the State Government to exclude the name of the Applicant from the eligibility list for preparation of the Select List 2015 for promotion to the Indian Police Service Cadre as his service in Karnataka Police Service was treated as Karnataka Administrative Service at that time. On this ground as well, the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside.

5.6) It is further contended that seniority and promotion must be determined in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service and any deviation from such rules violates the principles of equality and fairness which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988_is the statutory rules based on which seniority shall be determined of the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service. The Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 makes it clear as to how the allotment years are assigned to officers. In the instant case, the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 deviates from these statutory rules by arbitrarily assigning the year 2013 as the year of allotment to the Applicant in the cadre of Indian Police Service. This arbitrary fixation of seniority

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja without adherence to the statutory rules violates the Applicant's rights and undermines the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is one without authority of law, arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set at naught at the hands of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

5.7) The Applicant further contends that his juniors have been selected under the Select List 2015, with their year of allotment/ seniority fixed as 2012. In contrast, despite being eligible and having maintained an unblemished service record, the Applicant has been unjustly denied similar consideration for promotion under the same Select List 2015. This disparity not only undermines the Applicant's seniority and entitlement but also violates the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. By promoting his juniors while neglecting his rightful claim to promotion, the Respondents have acted arbitrarily and unfairly, deviating from statutory rules and established norms governing promotions within the civil services. This differential treatment based on arbitrary grounds rather than merit or seniority constitutes a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates equality before the law. The Applicant is fully entitled to be considered under the Select List 2015 and not 2016 and for fixation of seniority/year of allotment as 2012 and not 2013. Therefore, on this ground as well, the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent assigning the year of allotment to the Applicant as 2013 is liable to be set aside.

5.8) The Applicant submits that he has diligently served in all his capacities with an unblemished record and has fulfilled all eligibility criteria for promotion to higher posts. Despite his exemplary service and merit, the Applicant has been unfairly deprived of rightful seniority and promotional opportunities, solely due to administrative delays and arbitrary decisions of the Respondents. The denial of

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja seniority and consequential benefits to the Applicant, while his juniors have been promoted and seniority re-fixed, is not only discriminatory but also illegal and violative of his fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned action of the Respondents, in failing to regularize the Applicant's seniority in accordance with statutory rules and administrative norms, have caused grave prejudice to him. Such arbitrary actions undermine the principles of natural justice and fairness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Applicant seeks redressal from this Hon'ble Court to rectify the unlawful denial of seniority and consequential benefits and to ensure that his rights to equality and fair treatment are upheld in accordance with the law.

5.9) Even otherwise the action on the part of the Respondents is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The Applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise all and such other contentions available to him, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. The brief fact of the applicant as mentioned in the synopsis is following:- “ Sl. No. Date Particulars

The Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 came into force and it regulates the seniority of the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service.

The Karnataka Public Service Commission issued a notification calling for applications for the post of Gazetted Probationers. The Applicant has applied to the said post and pursuant to the rigorous written test and oral interview, the Applicant emerged as a successful Digitally signed by Mikasha Suneja

Mikasha Suneja candidate. The Applicant has secured 1151 marks and one Sri. Sangappa secured 1152 marks, claiming under 2A category was selected to the post of Karnataka Administrative Service (Group-A) (Junior Scale).

29/11/2005 The Applicant was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police under 2A category. The names of Sri. Jagadisha G. and Sri. Sangappa who have been appointed under 2A category finds place at Serial No. 14 and 15 under the post called Assistant Commissioner. The name of the Applicant finds place at Serial No. 6 under Deputy Superintendent of Police category.

05/12/2005 The said Sri. Sangappa does not belong to 2A category and he has falsely claimed such reservation. The Applicant has challenged the caste certificate issued in favour of Sri. Sangappa before the Appellate Authority and it granted an interim Order of Stay of the validity certificate issued in favour of Sri. Sangappa.

23/01/2006 The caste certificate issued to Sri. Sangappa was set aside by the Appellate Authority for verification of caste and income certificate, Bangalore.

NIL In response, Sri. Sangappa approached the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1449/2006 challenging the order dated 23/01/2006 and the Hon'ble High Court granted an interim Order of Status Quo in the year 2006. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by Sri. Sangappa against which he approached the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, overturning the Learned Single Judge's decision, a ruling which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

04/07/2013 Based on seniority cum merit, the Applicant was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS).

NIL However, the Applicant was unjustly denied selection and appointment to the Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) in the year 2006 despite him being meritorious in the 2A category. Instead, he was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police rather Digitally signed by Mikasha Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

than Assistant Commissioner.

24/03/2017 The 3rd Respondent after examining the matter afresh, the matter was placed before the cabinet for taking appropriate decision. Accordingly, the cabinet has taken a decision create to a supernumerary post in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) aligning with the notification which was issued in the year 1999 and the Applicant is appointed to the said post. The Order is very clear that the Applicant is entitled for all the benefits with effect from 01/02/2006 and is appointed to the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale).

30/03/2017 Pursuant to the said Order, the Applicant has reported for duty before the 4th Respondent.

31/03/2017 The Order dated 24/03/2017 states that seniority of the Applicant is to be fixed in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) and there is no action taken by the Respondent No. 3 and 4. Immediately, the Applicant has made a representation requesting the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to fix the seniority with effect from 01/02/2006 and consequently promotion to the post of Senior Scale with retrospective dated from 17/09/2011.

31/03/2017 The probationary period of the Applicant is declared as satisfactory in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale). The period of probation of two years is reduced in view of the service rendered by the Applicant in the State Government and consequently, the probationary period is declared as satisfactory.

30/05/2017 In the meanwhile, the batch mates of the Applicant who were appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police were considered for conferring Indian Police Service. The Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the Respondent No. 3 stating that the Applicant is not borne in the Police Department and therefore exclude his name for conferring Indian Police Service since his service is treated as Karnataka Administrative Service.

21/07/2017 After thorough verification, his batch mates Sri. Joshi Srinath Mahadev and others were inducted into Indian Police Service. Digitally signed by Mikasha Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

15/12/2017 With these facts, the Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court in Original Application No. 237/2017 seeking for a direction to consider his promotion case for to the post of Indian Administrative Service since he is entitled for all the consequential benefits provided under the Government Order dated 24/03/2017. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the said Original Application No. 237/2017 and directed to convene a Review Selection committee meeting and to place the name of the Applicant alongside Sri. G. Jagadisha.

08/02/2018 Subsequently, the Order of this Hon'ble Court in Original Application No. 237/2017 was challenged before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by Smt. K. S. Latha Kumari and others in Writ Petition No. 1252-1256/2018. The Division Bench allowed the Writ Petition on 08/02/2018, setting aside the Order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Original Application No. 237/2017.

23/02/2018 Accordingly, the juniors of the Applicant - Smt. K. M. Janaki, Smt. Sathyabhama and Smt. K. S. Lalita Kumari among others, were promoted to the Indian Administrative Service against vacancies from the year 2015.

14/05/2018 The Respondent No. 4 prepared and published the Seniority List in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) and (Senior Scale), inserting the name of the Applicant at Serial No. 1222-A and 601-A respectively in between Sri. Jagadisha G and Smt. Janaki K. M.

12/03/2019 The 3rd Respondent by its letter sent a proposal for promotion of the Applicant and 23 other candidates against the 11 vacancies determined for preparation of the Select List - 2016. In the Annexure to the said proposal, the name of the Applicant finds place at Sl. No.

1. 03/09/2019 The 4th Respondent published the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Senior Scale) pursuant to the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. K. PAVITHRA-II The name of the Applicant finds place at Serial No. 598 and his name is shown in between Sri. Jagadisha G and Smt. Digitally signed by Mikasha Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

Janaki K. M.

20/09/2019 The Applicant has been promoted to the post of Karnataka Administrative Service (Senior Scale).

21/10/2019 The Applicant has made a representation to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with a request to consider his case for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service for the Select List of 2015 since his juniors are already promoted to the said post and seniority is re-fixed.

05/12/2019 The Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court in Application No. 1321/2019 seeking for a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service by convening Revised Selection committee meeting and to promote him to the said post with retrospective date from the date his juniors are promoted i.e. 23/02/2018 and for such other reliefs.

13/02/2020 The said Application No. 1321/2019 was resisted by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 by filing the statement of objection wherein at para 4, it was categorically admitted that the name of the Applicant has already been submitted to the 2nd respondent for promotion to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service.

28/02/2020 Considering the said submission, this Hon'ble Court, leaving open the question of considering the case of the Applicant in the earlier batch, directed the 2nd Respondent to decide on the suitability of the Applicant for promotion to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service within a period of 1 month.

30/04/2020 Despite the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the 2nd Respondent did not convene the selection committee meeting and did not consider the case of the Applicant and therefore, the 3rd Respondent once again made a request to the 2nd Respondent to convene the Selection Committee meeting for the Select List 2016.

26/06/2020 It appears that, once again, a letter along with a self-contained note was addressed to the 2nd Respondent reiterating the contents in the proposal dated 12/03/2019.

11/08/2020 In response to the said letter, the 2nd Respondent has written to the Digitally signed by Mikasha Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

3rd Respondent whereunder at Para 2 (ii), the 2nd Respondent has categorically directed the 3rd Respondent to exclude the name of the Applicant from the eligibility list submitted under the proposal dated 12/03/2019.

21/08/2020 In the meanwhile, the seniority/year of allotment was processed in respect of batch mates who were conferred Indian Police Service vide order dated 21/07/2017 was taken up by Respondent No. 1 and Sri. Joshi Srinath Mahadev and others were given year of allotment as 2012 as against the Select List for the year 2014-2015.

31/03/2021 The prolonged legal battle between Sri. Sangappa and the Applicant with regard to validity of caste certificate culminated in Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017 (GM-CC) before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court allowed Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017 and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1449/2006 was set aside and as a result the original order dated 23/01/2006 cancelling the caste certificate was quashed.

24/05/2021 The appointment of the Applicant to the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) was rescinded and his lien is fixed in the original cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Respondent No. 4 on account of order passed in Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017.

05/08/2021 The seniority of the Applicant is refixed in the cadre Of Deputy Superintendent of Police at Serial. No. 775 between Sri. Devaraj D and Smt. Siri Gowri D. R.

13/08/2021 The Applicant has questioned the order dated 24/05/2021 in Application No.

before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the Application affirming the order dated 24/05/2021 and issued direction to revive the lien of the Applicant in the Department of Home in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and to assign the Applicant appropriate rank and seniority, had he continued to work continuously in the Department of Home since the date of his appointment to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police on

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

31/01/2006 and to extend all consequential benefits to which would have been legally entitled.

13/08/2021 The Applicant made a representation to the Department of Home requesting to send a proposal to the Respondent No. 2 for promotion to Indian Police Service in the Select List of 2015.

NIL The Respondent No. 1 considering his representation requested the Respondent No. 4 to submit all original documents for consideration of his case to the Indian Police Service for the Select List of the year 2015.

13/10/2021 The Respondent No. 4 sent request letter to Respondent No. 2 for consideration of the case of the Applicant for promotion to Indian Police Service in the Select List of year 2015.

10/12/2021 The Respondent No.1 issued a notification notifying the name of the Applicant as per the Select List of the year 2016 for Indian Police Service. The name of the Applicant is at Sl. No. 1 against the Select List - 2016.

28/06/2022 The Applicant made a representation to the Respondent No. 4 requesting to consider his case for fixing seniority and year of allotment as 2012 and further made a request to send the proposal in this regard to the Respondent No. 1.

29/07/2022 The Applicant tossed the order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 7241/2021 and the challenge against the order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court remained unsuccessful.

25/08/2022 When things stood thus, the Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order whereunder the seniority of the Applicant is fixed in the cadre of Indian Police Service and he has been allotted 2013 as the year of allotment.

10/07/2023 The Applicant made representation to the Respondent No. 3 with a request to consider his year of allotment as 2012. However, there is no reply received for the said representation submitted by the Applicant for assigning year of allotment for the cadre of Indian Police Service, Karnataka Cadre as the year of 2012 till today. Digitally signed by Mikasha Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

The Applicant has filed the instant Application seeking to quash the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 by the 1st Respondent whereunder the Applicant has been assigned with the year of allotment as 2013 which is contrary to the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 and for such other reliefs among the following grounds:

i) The impugned order dated 25/08/2022 is so far as assigning year of allotment as 2013 is wholly illegal and contrary to Rules, 1988. The Rules, 1988 regulates the method by which seniority is considered and provided to the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service. The Rule 3

(3) (ii) provides for the year of allotment to a promotee officer. The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 25/08/2022 fixing the seniority/ year of allotment of the Applicant appointed on promotion from State Police Service quota as the year 2013 is contrary to the Rule 3 (3)

(ii) of the Rules, 1988.

ii) As per the rule, every promotee officer for the service rendered by them up to twenty-one years, shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years. In the instant case, the Applicant has served for a period of 9 years from the year 2006 to 2015, so considering the weightage, he shall be eligible for 3 years of weightage for the service rendered by him in the State Police Service. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the same while passing the impugned order whereunder the Applicant is assigned with the allotment year as 2013 whereas he should be assigned with the allotment year as 2012. The Respondent No. 1 without application of mind and without considering the above aspect has passed the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 assigning the year of allotment to the Applicant as 2013. iii) The action of the Respondents denying the assignment of year of allotment as 2012 is contrary to law.

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

The juniors of the Applicant have been assigned year of allotment as 2012 vide order dated 21/08/2020 whereas the Applicant is given the year of allotment as 2013. The seniority of the Applicant would seriously affect for further promotion and it would dent his career. When the proposal is sent in the year 2017 for Indian Police Service, the same was denied to the Applicant and when the Applicant is conferred with Indian Police Service, the seniority is denied perpetuating the illegality.

iv) The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is even contrary to the proposal sent by the State Government. The State Government way back in the year 2017 itself had sent a proposal to the Selection Committee for preparation of the Select List of 2015 for promotion to Indian Police Service (Karnataka Cadre). The Respondent No. 2 directed the State Government to exclude the name of the Applicant from the eligibility list for preparation of the Select List 2015 for promotion to the Indian Police Service Cadre as his service in was Karnataka Police Service was treated as Karnataka Administrative Service at that time.

v) Seniority and promotion must be determined in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service and any deviation from such rules violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 is the statutory rules based on which seniority shall be determined of the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service. In the instant case, the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 deviates from these statutory rules by arbitrarily assigning the year 2013 as the year of allotment to the Applicant in the cadre of Indian Police Service.

vi) The juniors of the Applicant have been selected under the Select List 2015, with their year of allotment/seniority fixed as 2012. In contrast, despite being eligible and having maintained an unblemished service record, the Applicant has been unjustly denied similar consideration for promotion under the same Select List 2015. This disparity

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja not only undermines the Applicant's seniority and entitlement but also violates the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25/08/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 assigning the Applicant with year of allotment as 2013 presents this Application.”

4. On notice, Respondent No.1 has filed the reply statement. Then Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their reply statement and then Respondent No.2 has filed the reply statement separately. List of citations have been filed and MA No. 418/2024 has been filed for condonation of delay, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.01.2025. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.

5. The case came up for final hearing on 07.10.2026. Shri Satish K for the applicant, Shri S. Prakash Shetty for Respondent No.1, Shri N. Amaresh for Respondent No.2 and Shri Mahantesh Shettar for Respondents No. 3 and 4 were present and heard.

6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions. Facts of the case are not contested.

7. The Applicant has filed this Original Application challenging only the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure–A23) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which assigned his year of allotment as 2013 and determined his seniority in the

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

Indian Police Service (IPS) pursuant to the Select List of 2016, in terms of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988. The Applicant seeks assignment of the year of allotment as 2012 on par with officers junior to him in the State Police Service who were inducted against the Select List of 2015. The Applicant has not challenged either the Select List of 2015 or his own inclusion in the Select List of 2016 via notification dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure–A21).

8. Undisputed Factual Matrix Selection & Service: The Applicant appeared for the Gazetted Probationers examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in 1999. Following the select list published on 29.11.2005 (Annexure–A1), the Applicant secured 1151 marks in Category 2A and was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Karnataka Police Service. Sri Sangappa, securing 1152 marks in Category 2A, was appointed to the Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale). Caste Certificate Litigation: The Applicant challenged Sri Sangappa’s 2A caste certificate. Upon setting aside of the certificate by the Appellate Authority on 23.01.2006, Sri Sangappa approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 1449/2006. The

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

Single Judge dismissed the petition; however, the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 100388/2017 reversed that decision, quashing the cancellation order. The decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.07.2022 in SLP (Civil) No. 7241/2021, settling the caste certificate dispute in Sri Sangappa’s favour. Supernumerary KAS Appointment & Repatriation: Pending litigation, the State Government created a supernumerary post in the KAS (Junior Scale) and appointed the Applicant vide Government Order No. DPAR 86 ASD 2016 (P-1) dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure– A2) with effect from 01.02.2006, subject to the final outcome in W.P. No. 1449/2006. Consequent to the final judgment in Sri Sangappa's favour, the Applicant's KAS appointment was rescinded, and his lien was restored to his original cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide order dated 24.05.2021. KSAT Proceedings: The Applicant challenged the order dated 24.05.2021 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 1866/2021. By order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure– A18), the Tribunal upheld the reversion, revived his lien in the Department of Home from 31.01.2006, and directed the assignment of appropriate rank, seniority, and consequential legal benefits as if he had served uninterruptedly in the Department of Home.

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

IPS Induction: Following repatriation, the State Government submitted proposals to the Union Public Service Commission. The Applicant was subsequently included at Serial No. 1 in the Select List of 2016 for promotion to the IPS (Karnataka Cadre) vide notification dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure–A21). Impugned Seniority Determination: By order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure–A23), Respondent No. 1 determined the Applicant's year of allotment as 2013 under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the 1988 Rules, reckoning 10 years of qualifying continuous service (from 31.01.2006) up to 31.12.2015.

9. Statutory Provisions & Analysis of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988: The applicant has relied the 1988 Rule, which is:- “(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows: -

(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the “year for which” the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, upto the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the “year for which” the meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the following manner:- (a) for the service rendered by him upto twenty one years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years:

(b) He shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in sub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years. Explanation: For the purpose of calculation of weightage under this clause, fractions, if any, are to be ignored. Provided that he shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list.”

However, in their reply statement the respondents have relied the Rule 3(3)(ii) amended as on 18.04.2012, which is:- “3. Assignment of year of allotment- (1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained in these rules.

(2) The year of allotment of an officer in Service at the commencement of these rules shall be the same as has been assigned to him or may be assigned to him by the Central Government in accordance with the rules, orders and instructions in force immediately before the commencement of these rules.

(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be as follows:

(i) The year of allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held:

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

1Provided that if a direct recruit officer, other than an exempted probationer within the meaning of Cl. (ee) of Rule 2 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, who is permitted to join probationary training under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 with the direct recruit officers of subsequent year of allotment, then he shall be assigned that subsequent year as the year of allotment.

(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year in which the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, up to the 31st date of December of the year 3[***] in which the meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, in the following manner:- 4[(a) for the service rendered by him upto twelve years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed four years of service, subject to a minimum of three years; (b) for the service rendered by him beyond 12 years, as referred to in sub-clause (a)and upto 21 years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service;

(c) for the service rendered by him beyond 21 years, as referred to in sub-clause (b), he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service, subject to a maximum of three years.]

Applying these rules based on the above amendment, the weighted formula will be as follows:-

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja

Completed years of qualifying service Weightage in years

3 (Minimum)

9 (Maximum)

As no rejoinder has been filed, hence, we consider that the rule position applicable to the applicant is the amended rule as on 18.04.2012 as filed by the Respondent No.1 and this formula is applicable. Hence, for 2016 Select year allottee of Indian Police Service who has been appointed in the year 2006, having 10 years of service (which facts are not disputed) can get a maximum weightage of 3 years and accordingly, the 2016 Select Year allottee will get the Indian Police Service seniority of 2013 as has been given in the impugned order. Statutory Application: The statutory formula establishes that the year of allotment of a promotee officer cannot be determined in isolation from the Select List year on the basis of which the officer was appointed. For an appointment under the Select List of 2016 with 10 years of completed qualifying service as of 31.12.2015, the weightage

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja allowable is 3 years. Subtracting 3 years from the Select List year of 2016 yields 2013. Effect of Non-Challenge to Select List: The Applicant rests his claim for the year of allotment 2012 on the allotment assigned to officers junior to him who were inducted against the Select List of 2015. However, the Applicant has neither challenged the 2015 Select List, nor his own appointment under the Select List of 2016 (Notification dated 10.12.2021). In the absence of a direct challenge to the underlying selection/Select List year, the Tribunal cannot, in proceedings confined solely to an allotment order under the 1988 Rules, re-determine seniority as if the Applicant had been appointed under an earlier Select List. It is left to the applicant, if he is so advised to challenge those underlying IPS Appointment orders under the Select List of 2015 or 2016.

10. Consideration of Grounds Urged in Paragraph 5 Group 1: Statutory Formula & Rules (Grounds in Paragraphs 5.1, 5.4, and 5.6) Contentions: The Applicant submitted that the impugned order violates Rule 3(3)(ii) of the 1988 Rules, Article 14 of the Constitution, and the principles laid down in Balraj Singh and Others v. Dr. Ashok Khemka, I.A.S., and others [2008 (5) SLR 758], arguing that the year

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja of allotment must be computed strictly with reference to continuous service in the State Police Service. Findings: The respondents strictly applied the statutory formula: 10 years of qualifying service against the Select List of 2016 gives a weightage of 3 years, resulting in 2013. No mathematical or computational error exists under Rule 3(3)(ii). The distinction between promotion selection regulations and seniority rules is material; allotment must follow the actual Select List year under which induction occurred. We do not find the order of Balraj Singh (supra) helps the applicant in any way, as the order of assignment of seniority in IPS is strictly as per rule and fact that he has got 2016 Select List of IPS. Group 2: Equal Treatment & Denial of Benefit Relative to Juniors (Grounds in Paragraphs 5.3, 5.7, and 5.8) Contentions: The Applicant contended that assigning 2013 while his juniors in the State Police Service (inducted under the 2015 Select List) were assigned 2012 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, causes prejudice to his promotional prospects, and penalizes his unblemished service record due to administrative delays. Findings: Differing years of allotment stem directly from the differing Select List years (2015 vs. 2016) against which the

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja respective officers were appointed. While the Applicant's situation arose from administrative/litigation history, general assertions of discrimination or an unblemished record cannot override the statutory formula in the absence of a successful legal challenge to the underlying 2016 or 2015 Select List notification, which is still open to the applicant if he is so advised. Group 3: Inter-State Orders, Proposals & Catch-All Claims (Grounds in Paragraphs 5.2, 5.5, and 5.9) Contentions: The Applicant argued that the allotment order is contrary to the KSAT order in Application No. 1866/2021 (which restored his lien and directed consequential benefits), conflicts with the State Government's initial 2017 proposal for the 2015 Select List, and requested liberty under general assertions of legal error. Findings: The KSAT order restored the Applicant's lien and extended consequential benefits as legally permissible under applicable rules, but did not itself fix a specific IPS allotment year or alter the Select List year. The 2017 proposal (for 2015 Select List) was superseded when the Applicant was validly inducted under the 2016 Select List. The legality of his non-inclusion in the 2015 Select List cannot be adjudicated indirectly in an application challenging only the

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja subsequent 2022 allotment order of seniority in IPS. General catch-all assertions establish no independent error.

11. Final Directives & Order: Having found no error in the application of the statutory formula under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 as amended on 18.04.2012 to the Select List of 2016, we pass the following orders:

ORDER

The Original Application is hereby dismissed. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

/ms/

Suneja

Mikasha Suneja