Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2446 /2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9409/2013]

STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS …  APPELLANT (S)   

VERSUS

ADUP TSHERING BHUTIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    

2. Integration  of  services  means  the  creation  of  a  

homogenous service by the amalgamation or merger  

of service personnel belonging to separate services.  

Integration is a policy matter as far as the State is  

concerned. In evolving a proper coalescence of the  

services, there are various steps:

(i) Decide  the  principles  on  the  basis  of  which  

integration of services has to be effected;

(ii) Examine the facts relating to each category and class  

of post with reference to the principle of equivalence;

1

Page 2

(iii) Fix the equitable basis for the preparation of common  

seniority list of personnel holding posts which are merged  

into one category.  

The State  is  bound to  ensure  a  fair  and equitable  

treatment  to  officers  in  various  categories/cadres  of  

services while preparing the common seniority list. Being  

a  complicated  process,  integration  is  likely  to  result  in  

individual bruises which are required to be minimised and  

if  not  possible,  to  be  ignored.  These  first  principles  on  

integration are to be borne in mind whenever a dispute on  

integration is addressed.

SHORT HISTORY

3. Prior to the constitution of integrated Sikkim Police  

Force  w.e.f.  11.09.2000  as  per  the  Sikkim  Police  

Force (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules,  

2000,  there  were  three  different  services,  viz.,  (1)  

Sikkim Police Force,  (2)  Sikkim Armed Police Force  

and (3) Sikkim Vigilance Police. All the three forces  

were  governed by  separate  service  rules.  There  is  

entry level of constable in all the three forces. The  

Sikkim  Vigilance  and  Sikkim  Armed  Forces  ended  

with  the  cadre  of  inspector.  In  the  case  of  Sikkim  

2

Page 3

Armed Police there was also 50% direct recruitment  

at the level of sub-inspector. Promotion to the post of  

Deputy Superintendent of Police was available only  

to  the  Sikkim  Police  Force.  The  posts  of  Deputy  

Superintendent  of  Police  in  Sikkim Vigilance  Police  

and  Sikkim  Armed  Police  were  filled  up  only  by  

deputation.  The personnel  belonging  to  the  Sikkim  

Vigilance Police and Sikkim Armed Police had been  

raising  their  grievances  with  regard  to  lack  of  

promotion  beyond  inspector  of  police  at  various  

levels.  The  matter  reached  the  High  Court  in  Writ  

Petition (C) No. 513 of 1998. Realising the heartburn,  

the State Government appointed Justice N. G. Das, a  

former Judge of the High Court of Sikkim as one man  

Commission for examining the scope of integration of  

different  services.  Implementing  the  

recommendations  of  the  Commission,  the  State  

Government  framed  the  Sikkim  Police  Force  

(Recruitment,  Promotion and Seniority)  Rules,  2000  

under  Article  309  of  the  Constitution  of  India  

consisting  of  posts  upto  inspector  in  all  the  three  

forces. For the purpose of ready reference, we shall  

3

Page 4

extract Rule 4 of 2000 Rules on constitution of the  

forces:

“4. Constitution of the Force: The Force shall consist of the following, namely:- (a) Persons holding the posts upto and including  

Inspectors  under  Schedule  I  of  the  Sikkim  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion  and  Seniority) Rules, 1981.

(b) Persons holding the posts of Constable, Head  Constable,  Assistant  sub-Inspector,  Sub- Inspector  and  Inspector  under  the  Sikkim  Vigilance  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1981.

(c) Persons  holding  the  posts  of  Sub-Inspector  and Inspector under the Sikkim Armed Police  (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules,  1989.

(d) Persons recruited to the Force in accordance  with the provisions of these rules.”

4. On seniority, Rule 9 provided that the same would be  

determined by the order of merit in which they are  

selected for recruitment. To quote:

“9. Seniority (i) The relative seniority of the members of the  

force recruited directly, shall  be determined  by  the  order  of  merit  in  which  they  are  selected for such recruitment. Members as a  result of an earlier selection shall be senior to  those recruited as a result  of  a subsequent  selection.

(ii) The  relative  seniority  of  persons  promoted  from a  lower  post  shall  be on the basis  of  seniority-cum-merit  subject  to  successfully  passing the prescribed exam.

(iii) The  relative  seniority  inter-se  of  members  recruited  directly  and  through  promotion  

4

Page 5

shall be determined according to the rotation  of  vacancies  between  direct  recruits  and  promotes which shall be based on the quota  of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment  and promotion, respectively, in these rules.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5. On inter se seniority at the level of two cadres, viz.,  

sub-inspector and inspector, it appears, there was a  

back  reference  to  Justice  N.  G.  Das  Commission.  

However, it is seen from the records that there was  

no  further  recommendation  from Justice  N.  G.  Das  

Commission.  With  regard  to  the  method  and  

modalities of fixing of seniority of the sub-inspectors  

and inspectors, the matter was hence referred to a  

committee of senior police officers constituted by the  

Director General of Police. It was recommended that  

the inter se seniority at the level of sub-inspectors be  

the  determining  criterion  for  fixing  the  inter  se  

seniority of inspectors in the integrated cadre.  The  

proposal  was  approved  by  the  Government  on  

11.04.2008 but the same was not implemented due  

to the pendency of a Writ Petition filed by the first  

respondent  herein.  After  the  disposal  of  the  Writ  

Petition  on  27.08.2009  as  withdrawn,  the  

government again constituted a high level committee  

5

Page 6

headed  by  the  Chief  Secretary  as  Chairman  with  

Director  General  of  Police,  Home  Secretary  and  

Secretary DoP as members and Joint Secretary DoP  

as member secretary. The committee submitted its  

report on 31.10.2009. It was recommended that the  

inter se seniority of police inspectors should be fixed  

based  on  the  seniority  at  the  entry  level  of  sub-

inspectors. It was also recommended that inspectors  

of Sikkim Police be deemed to have been promoted  

as inspectors w.e.f. the date their colleague officers  

at the entry level of sub-inspectors in Sikkim Armed  

Police and Sikkim Vigilance Police first got promoted  

as inspectors. The recommendation was approved by  

the  State  Government  on  10.11.2009,  and  on  

19.01.2010  a  Notification  was  issued  granting  

retrospective promotion to 52 members of the Sikkim  

Police Force with the condition that the officers will  

not be entitled to arrears of pay.  

6. The State Government also amended the integrated  

Sikkim  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion  and  

Seniority)  Rules,  2000  as  per  Notification  dated  

20.01.2010  with  retrospective  effect  from  

11.09.2000. The amendment was mainly in Rule No.  6

Page 7

9  on  seniority  wherein  a  new  sub-clause  (iv)  was  

inserted. The amended Rule 9 (iv) reads as follows:

“9(iv)(a) The inter-se-seniority of police personnel  up to the rank of Assistant Sub-inspector  in the Sikkim Police and Sikkim Vigilance  Police on the date of  amalgamation of  the  cadres  for  the  purpose  of  their  promotion  to  the  next  rank  shall  be  determined on the basis of their date of  appointment to the entry level  post  of  Constable.

(b) The  inter-se-seniority  of  Police  Inspectors  of  Sikkim  Police,  Sikkim  Vigilance  Police,  Sikkim  Armed  Police  and  Indian  Reserve  Battalion  on  the  date of amalgamation of the cadres for  the  purpose  of  their  promotion  to  the  rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police  shall be determined on the basis of their  date of appointment to the entry level of  Sub-Inspector.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. The Rules also provided for a residuary power to the  

Government for relaxation. The relevant Rule reads  

as under:

“17.  Power  to  relax:  Where  the  Government  of  Sikkim  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  necessary  or  expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to  be recorded in writing, relax and of the provisions  of these rules with respect to any class or category  of persons or post.”

7

Page 8

SHORT FACTS

8. Seniority,  the  retrospective  promotion  granted  

notionally  to  the  members  of  the  pre-integrated  

Sikkim  Police  Force  and  the  amendment  was  

challenged by respondent no.1 before the High Court  

in Writ  Petiton (C) No.  33 of 2010 mainly with the  

following two prayers:  

“(a) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other  writ,  order  or  directions  striking  down/quashing  Rule  9(iv)(b)  of  the  Sikkim  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion  &  Seniority) Rules, 2000 as inserted by Rule 2  of  the  Sikkim  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion and Seniority) Amendment Rules,  2009 brought into force vide Notification No.  222/GEN/DOP  dated  20.01.2010  with  retrospective effect from 11.09.2000.

(b) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other  writ,  order  or  directions  striking  down/quashing  the  Notification  No.  02/PHQ/2010 dated 19.01.2010 to the extent  it  gives  retrospective  promotion  to  over  6  years to the private Respondent Nos. 7 to 28  except  Respondent  No.  21  by  a  deeming  fiction  irrespective  of  their  actual  date  of  confirmation  with  effect  from  the  dates  mentioned in the said impugned notification  against the names of each of the said private  Respondents.”

9. For a proper understanding of the factual disputes,  

we shall refer to the grievance of the writ petitioner.  

He  joined  Sikkim  Police  as  a  Constable  on  

8

Page 9

12.08.1974. He was absorbed in the Sikkim Vigilance  

Police  on  12.09.1978.  He  was  promoted  as  sub-

inspector on 22.12.1986 and was further promoted  

as  inspector  on  26.09.1995.  On  account  of  the  

retrospective promotion granted to the members of  

the  Sikkim  Police  Force  based  on  the  date  of  

appointment/promotion as sub-inspector in the case  

of the other two services, the writ petitioner became  

junior to them, affecting his chances of promotion to  

the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.  

10. The  High  Court  by  Judgment  dated  10.10.2012  

allowed the Writ Petition quashing the retrospective  

promotion  granted  to  the  private  respondents  and  

striking  down  Rule  9(iv)  holding  also  that  the  

seniority in the integrated cadre of inspectors shall  

be  decided  only  on  the  basis  of  their  substantive  

promotion to that post, and not based on the date of  

promotion/appointment to the post of sub-inspector.  

The  Court,  however,  protected  the  promotions  

granted to the private respondents. It is significant to  

note that even the writ petitioner was also promoted  

as  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  on  23.02.2012  

and  he  retired  from  service  on  31.08.2012.  The  9

Page 10

direction by the High Court is to grant promotion with  

effect from the date the first promotion was granted  

to  any  other  private  respondent  with  all  the  

consequential  including  monitory  benefits.  Thus  

aggrieved, the State is before this Court.

11. The  High  Court  has  placed  reliance  on  the  

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of  

Gujarat and Another  v.  Raman Lal Keshav Lal  

Soni and Others1 regarding retrospective operation  

of  law.  Reliance  is  also  placed  on  another  

Constitution  Bench  decision  in  B.S.  Yadav  and  

Others  v.  State of  Haryana2.  In  B.  S.  Yadav’s  

case  (supra),  this  Court  dealt  with  the  legislative  

power  of  the  State  under  Article  309  of  the  

Constitution of India. It was clearly held in both the  

decisions that the State is competent to enact laws  

with retrospective effect.  The only rider is that the  

date  of  retrospective  operation  should  have  

relevance and nexus  with  the  object  sought  to  be  

achieved and the same shall not affect the accrued  

rights.  

1 (1983) 2 SCC 33 2 (1980) Suppl. SCC 524

10

Page 11

12. The short question is whether the amended Rule on  

fixation  of  seniority  satisfied  the  test  of  

reasonableness.  Integration  of  three  services  was  

necessitated  for  balancing  the  inequality  to  the  

extent that the members of two of the services were  

denied  promotion  to  the  post  of  Deputy  

Superintendent  of  Police.  Such  promotion  was  

available only to the members of the erstwhile Sikkim  

Police  Force  and  was  denied  to  Sikkim  Vigilance  

Police  and  Sikkim Armed Police.  In  this  context,  it  

would be useful to refer to the terms of reference to  

Justice N. G. Das Commission:

“(1) To  comprehensively  review  the  existing  Recruitment Rules of all the different wings of  Sikkim Police so as to arrive at an appropriate  solution,  which  would  meet  promotional  aspirations of the entire Police Force.

(2) To examine the necessity  for  integration of  the  different  Recruitment  Rules particulary  (a)  Sikkim  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion  and  Seniority)  Rules,  1988,  (b)  Sikkim Armed Force (Recruitment, Promotion  and other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1989  and  (c)  the  Sikkim  Vigilance  Police  (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Rules,  1981, so as to bring about long term solution  to  meet  the  promotional  aspirations  of  the  entire  Police  Force.  The  Commission  shall  submit its report on or before 31.12.99.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11

Page 12

13. Accepting  the  recommendation  of  the  Commission  

for  a  unified  Police  Force,  the  State  Government  

integrated  three  services  and  promulgated  the  

Sikkim  Police  Force  (Recruitment,  Promotion  and  

Seniority) Rules, 2000. It is to be specifically noted  

that  the  members  of  Sikkim  Vigilance  Police  and  

Sikkim  Armed  Police  had  obtained  accelerated  

promotion  to  various  posts  up  to  the  position  of  

inspector of police. However, their compeers in the  

erstwhile  Sikkim  Police  Force  could  not  get  such  

promotions to the higher post of inspector for want of  

vacancy. It is crucially significant to note that there  

was  entry  level  direct  recruitment  in  one  of  the  

services, viz., Sikkim Vigilance Police to the extent of  

50%.

14. No doubt one of the main principles of integration is  

equation of posts. But the question is whether such  

integration based only on equation of posts will result  

in inequality or injustice to the members of any other  

service.  

15. As we have already noted above, promotion to the  

post  of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  was  

12

Page 13

available only to members of the Sikkim Police Force.  

In the other two services, viz., Sikkim Vigilance Police  

and  Sikkim  Armed  Police,  though  the  members  

therein  got  accelerated  promotion  to  the  post  of  

inspector, there was no further promotion available  

to them and they had to retire from service in that  

cadre.  It  was this inequality that was sought to be  

remedied by integration.  

16. The  feeder  category  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  

Deputy Superintendent of Police is inspector.  If  the  

seniority is fixed in that cadre of inspector, it would  

virtually amount to denial of promotion to the post of  

Deputy Superintendent of Police for quite some time  

to the members of the Sikkim Police Force. It was this  

discrimination and resultant injustice that was sought  

to  be  remedied  by  referring  the  matter  to  the  

Committee which recommended that for the purpose  

of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of  

Police and preparation of seniority list in that regard,  

the date of  promotion to the post  of  sub-inspector  

should form the basis.  That date was taken, as we  

have  already  noted  above,  since  there  was  direct  

recruitment  to  the  post  of  sub-inspector  in  Sikkim  13

Page 14

Armed  Police.  What  has  been  done  by  the  

Government is to base the date of promotion/direct  

recruitment  to  the  post  of  sub-inspector  as  the  

determining  factor  for  fixation  of  seniority  for  the  

purpose  of  promotion  to  the  post  of  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police and grant deemed/notional  

promotion to the members of the Sikkim Police Force  

from  the  date  their  compeers  in  the  other  two  

services  got  promotion  to  the  post  of  inspector.  

Appointment to the post of inspector is by promotion.  

Therefore, the entry level appointment to the cadre  

of sub-inspector becomes relevant. The sub-inspector  

of  Sikkim  Vigilance  and  Sikkim  Armed  Forces,  by  

chance,  got  accelerated  promotion  to  the  post  of  

inspector. It was this injustice that was sought to be  

remedied  by  the  retrospective  promotion  without  

monitory benefits and the amendment in the Rules.  

Merely because there is equation of post in a cadre  

on integration that does not necessarily mean that  

the common seniority list should be prepared in that  

cadre for promotion to the next higher cadre. If that  

method  would  result  in  injustice  and  graver  

14

Page 15

inequality,  another  fair  and  just  mode  can  be  

adopted.

17. True,  many  officers  who  were  working  as  sub-

inspectors, while the writ petitioner had been working  

as inspector, have gone above him in the process but  

the  hard  fact  which  caused  the  heartburn  to  his  

compeers in  the Sikkim Police Force is  that  at  the  

level  of  sub-inspectors,  all  of  them  were  either  

travelling  together  with  the  writ  petitioner  or  had  

gone much earlier to him in that cadre.

18. One  cannot  also  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that,  after  

integration,  the  promotion  chances  of  members  of  

Sikkim Police have been reduced considerably, since  

originally it was their exclusive domain.

19. The  Apex  Court  in  Tamil  Nadu  Education  

Department  Ministerial  and  General  

Subordinate Services Association and Others v.  

State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  Others3  held  that  

integration  is  a  complicated  administrative  process  

and it is likely to affect certain individuals. To quote:

“7. In  service  jurisprudence  integration  is  a  complicated administrative problem where, in doing  

3 (1980) 3 SCC 97 15

Page 16

broad justice to many, some bruise to a few cannot  be  ruled  out.  Some play  in  the  joints,  even  some  wobbling, must be left to government without fussy  forensic  monitoring,  since  the  administration  has  been entrusted by the Constitution to the executive,  not to the court. All life, including administrative life,  involves experiment,  trial  and error,  but within the  leading  strings  of  fundamental  rights,  and,  absent  unconstitutional “excesses”, judicial correction is not  right. Under Article 32, this Court is the constitutional  sentinel, not the national ombudsman. We need an  ombudsman but the court cannot make-do.

8.  … Maybe, a better formula could be evolved,  but  the  court  cannot  substitute  its  wisdom  for  Government’s,  save  to  see  that  unreasonable  perversity,  mala  fide  manipulation,  indefensible  arbitrariness  and  like  infirmities  do  not  defile  the  equation for integration. We decline to demolish the  order  on  this  ground.  Curial  therapeutics  can  heal  only the pathology of unconstitutionality, not every  injury.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The same view has been followed in Indian Airlines  

Officers’ Association v.  Indian Airlines Limited and  

others4, Kerala  Magistrates’  (Judicial)  Association  

and  others v.  State  of  Kerala  and  others5,  Life  

Indian  Corporation  of  India  and  Others v.  S.  S.  

Srivastava  and  Others6 and  New  Bank  of  India  

Employees’ Union and Another v. Union of India and  

Others7.

4 (2007) 10 SCC 684 5 (2001) 3 SCC 521 6 1988 Supp SCC 1 7 (1996) 8 SCC 407

16

Page 17

20. It has also been held by this Court in K.S. Vora and  

others v.  State  of  Gujarat  and  others8 that  

integration affecting the larger public interest would  

necessarily affect the seniority of some members of  

some of the services. To quote:

 “5. As  we  have  already  pointed  out  in  the  

instant case the State decided at stages to switch  over to the common cadre in respect of all the four  grades of the Subordinate Service. Before common  grades had been formed promotion was granted  departmentwise.  When  ultimately  a  common  cadre came into existence — and all that was done  by 1974 — it was realised that if seniority as given  in the respective departments were taken as final  for  all  purposes  there  would  be  prejudice.  Undoubtedly  the  common  cadre  was  for  the  purpose of increasing the efficiency by introducing  a spirit of total competition by enlarging the field  of choice for filling up the promotional posts and in  the  interest  of  discipline  too.  After  a  common  cadre  was  formed,  the  general  feeling  of  dissatisfaction on account of disparity of seniority  became  apparent.  The  1977  Rules  were  introduced  in  this  background  to  ease  the  situation.  The scheme of  this  rule  protected the  rank then held by every member  of  the service  notwithstanding alteration of seniority on the new  basis. This, therefore, made it clear that accrued  benefits  were  not  to  be interfered  with.  To  that  extent  the  1977  Rules  were  not  retroactive.  In  spite of the protection of rule regarding the post  then held, the Rules brought about a change in the  inter  se seniority  by adopting the date of  initial  recruitment and the length of service became the  basis for refixing seniority. Total length of service  for  such  purpose  is  a  well  known  concept  and  could not said to be arbitrary. Undoubtedly one of  the consequences of the change in the basis was  

8 (1988) 1 SCC 311  

17

Page 18

likely to affect prospects of promotion — a matter  in future. Two aspects have to be borne in mind  while considering the challenge of the appellants  to this situation. It was a historical necessity and  the  peculiar  situation  that  arose  out  of  government’s decision to create a common cadre  with  four  grades  in  the  entire  Secretariat.  We  would like to point out with appropriate emphasis  that  there  was  no  challenge  to  creation  of  the  common  cadre  and  certainly  government  was  competent  to  do  so.  The  second  aspect  to  be  borne  in  mind  is  that  rules  of  seniority  are  a  matter for the employer to frame and even though  prospects of promotion in future were likely to be  prejudiced by introduction of a new set of rules to  regulate  seniority,  if  the  rules  were  made  bona  fide  and  to  meet  exigencies  of  the  service,  no  entertainable  grievance could  be made.  If  these  are  the  tests  to  apply,  we  do  not  think  the  appellants have indeed any grievance to make. In  our  view,  therefore,  the  High  Court  rightly  dismissed  the  contention  and  found  that  appellants were not entitled to relief.”

(Emphasis supplied)

21. In  Kerala  Magistrates’  (Judicial)  Association  

case (supra), this Court held:

“5. We  have  examined  the  relevant  records  containing the deliberations made in the full court  meetings  of  the  High  Court  on  the  topic  of  integration of the two wings. It appears that on the  criminal side the entry post was Magistrate Second  Class and the highest post,  a Magistrate Second  Class could reach was Chief Judicial Magistrate. On  the civil  side the entry post was Munsif  and the  highest  post  was  the  District  Judge.  The  association  of  the  Criminal  Magistrates  had  all  along been clamouring that the post of District and  Sessions Judge should also be separated and the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrates  on  the  criminal  side  should also be promoted to the post of District and  Sessions Judge.           … … … the number of posts  of Judicial Magistrates Second Class, which existed  

18

Page 19

on the date of the full  court meeting. The Court  took  notice  of  the  fact  that  on  the  date  of  integration,  42  Magistrates  Second Class  will  be  absorbed  in  the  category  of  Munsif  Magistrates  and all of them will be duly benefited in their scale  of pay. The Court also considered that in view of  the number of posts available, while Munsifs could  expect promotion to 49 posts of Subordinate Judge  but  the  Judicial  Magistrates  could  expect  promotion  only  to  18  posts  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrates,  as  it  existed.  But  by  reason  of  integration,  the  chances  of  promotion  of  the  Magistrates  will  be  much  more  enhanced,  compared  to  the  chances  of  promotion  to  the  Munsifs. The Court also considered the normal rate  of promotion and found that for Munsifs, the rate  being  1.25,  for  a  Magistrate  rate  was  only  0.30  and  on  account  of  integration,  the  ratio  would  come to 0.84, which indicates that overall chances  of  promotion  to  the  Munsifs  would  get  reduced  from  1.25  to  0.84,  whereas  the  chances  of  promotion of the Magistrates get increased from  0.30 to 0.84. The High Court, therefore, suggested  that the ratio of 3:1 should be fixed both in the  integrated  cadre  of  the  Subordinate  Judges  and  Chief Judicial Magistrates for promotion to the post  of District Judge as well as in the cadre of Munsifs  and Magistrates First  Class  for  the promotion to  the  post  of  Subordinate  Judges.  The  High  Court  also  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  effect  of  integration will  be that while Munsifs would lose  chances of promotion the Magistrates will improve  their chances of promotion, although some Senior  Magistrates,  individually,  will  sustain  some  loss.  But  such  loss  is  the  usual  consequence  of  any  integration process. Notwithstanding the aforesaid  recommendations  of  the  High  Court,  the  State  Government on receipt of representation from the  Magistrates’  Association,  made  further  correspondence  with  the  High  Court  and  suggested that  the ratio  for  promotion from the  Munsifs and Magistrates to the Subordinate Judges  should be fixed at 5:2. The High Court initially had  some  reservations,  but  ultimately  accepted  the  same  and  communicated  its  acceptance  to  the  Government,  whereafter  the  Rules  were  

19

Page 20

promulgated and Rule 3(4) of the Rules embodies  the aforesaid principle. … … …  We see no legal  infirmity  with  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  High  Court,  requiring  interference by  this  Court,  even  though  we  agree  that  some  individual  Magistrates might have suffered some loss. …”

(Emphasis supplied)

22. All that apart, integration is a policy matter for the  

State. This Court had occasion to consider this aspect  

of  the  matter  in  Reserve Bank of  India v.  N.C.  

Paliwal and others9. To quote:

“15. Now,  the  first  question  which  arises  for  consideration  is  whether  Reserve  Bank  violated  the constitutional principle of equality in bringing  about  integration  of  non-clerical  with  clerical  services. We fail to see how integration of different  cadres into one cadre can be said to involve any  violation  of  the  equality  clause.  It  is  now  well  settled, as a result of the decision of this Court in  Kishori  Mohanlal  Bakshi v.  Union  of  India2 that  Article  16  and  a  fortiori also  Article  14  do  not  forbid  the  creation  of  different  cadres  for  government  service.  And  if  that  be  so,  equally  these two articles cannot stand in the way of the  State integrating different cadres into one cadre. It  is entirely a matter for the State to decide whether  to have several different cadres or one integrated  cadre  in  its  services.  That  is  a  matter  of  policy  which  does  not  attract  the  applicability  of  the  equality  clause.  The  integration  of  non-clerical  with clerical services sought to be effectuated by  the  combined  seniority  scheme  cannot  in  the  circumstances  be  assailed  as  violative  of  the  constitutional principle of equality.”

(Emphasis supplied)

9 (1976) 4 SCC 838 20

Page 21

23. In  R.S. Makashi and others v. I. M. Menon and  

others10, this Court held that :  

“34. When  personnel  drawn  from  different  sources  are being  absorbed and integrated  in  a  new  department,  it  is  primarily  for  the  Government or the executive authority concerned  to decide as a matter of policy how the equation of  posts  should  be  effected.  The  courts  will  not  interfere with such a decision unless it is shown to  be  arbitrary,  unreasonable  or  unfair,  and  if  no  manifest unfairness or unreasonableness is made  out, the court will not sit in appeal and examine  the  propriety  or  wisdom  of  the  principle  of  equation of posts adopted by the Government. In  the instant  case,  we have already indicated our  opinion  that  in  equating  the  post  of  Supply  Inspector in the CFD with that of Clerk with two  years’  regular  service  in  other  government  departments,  no  arbitrary  or  unreasonable  treatment was involved.”

(Emphasis supplied)

24. In  Prafulla Kumar Das and others v.  State of  

Orissa and others11, it was held that :  

“33. Under  Article  309  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  it  is  open to  the Governor  of  the Sate to  make  rules  regulating  the  recruitment,  and  the  conditions of service of persons appointed to such  services and posts until provision in that behalf is  made by or under an Act of the legislature. As has  been  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  Court  in  Nityananda  Kar  case  2  ,  the  legislature,  or  the    Governor of the State, as the case may be, may, in  its discretion, bestow or divest a right of seniority.  This  is  essentially  a  matter  of  policy,  and  the  question of a vested right would not arise, as the  State may alter or deny any such ostensible right,  

10 (1982) 1 SCC 379 11 (2003) 11 SCC 614

21

Page 22

even  by  way  of  retrospective  effect,  if  it  so  chooses (  sic  ) in public interest  .”

(Emphasis supplied)

25. In  S. S.  Bola and others v.  B.D.  Sardana and  

others12 also,  this  Court  held  that  seniority  of  a  

government servant is not a vested right and that an  

Act of State Legislature or a Rule under Article 309 of  

the  Constitution  of  India  can  retrospectively  affect  

the seniority of a government servant. To quote:  

“153.  xxx xxx   xxx   xxx

AB. A distinction between right to be considered  for promotion and an interest to be considered for  promotion has always been maintained. Seniority  is  a  facet  of  interest.  The  rules  prescribe  the  method  of  recruitment/selection.  Seniority  is  governed by the rules existing as on the date of  consideration for promotion. Seniority is required  to be worked out according to the existing rules.  No  one  has  a  vested  right  to  promotion  or  seniority. But an officer has an interest to seniority  acquired by working out  the rules.  The seniority  should be taken away only by operation of valid  law. Right to be considered for promotion is a rule  prescribed by conditions of service. A rule which  affects chances of promotion of a person relates to  conditions of service. The rule/provision in an Act  merely affecting the chances of promotion  would  not  be regarded  as  varying  the  conditions  of  service.  The  chances  of  promotion  are  not  conditions of service. A rule which merely affects  the  chances  of  promotion  does  not  amount  to  change in the conditions of service. However, once  a declaration of law, on the basis of existing rules,  is made by a constitutional court and a mandamus  

12  (1997) 8 SCC 522 22

Page 23

is issued or direction given for its enforcement by  preparing  the  seniority  list,  operation  of  the  declaration  of  law  and  the  mandamus  and  directions issued by the Court is the result of the  declaration  of  law  but  not  the  operation  of  the  rules         per se.  

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

200.  Thus to have a particular position in the  seniority list within a cadre can neither be said to  be  accrued  or  vested  right  of  a  government  servant and losing some places in the seniority list  within the cadre does not amount to reduction in  rank even though the future chances of promotion  get delayed thereby.”

26. The  High  Court  patently  erred  in  holding  that  the  

acquired or accrued rights of the writ petitioner had  

been affected by the fixation of seniority at the level  

of sub-inspector of Police. It has to be noted that, but  

for  merger,  neither  the  writ  petitioner  nor  the  

members of the two other police forces, viz., Sikkim  

Vigilance Police and Sikkim Armed Force, could have  

got  any  promotion  at  all  to  the  post  of  Deputy  

Superintendent  of  Police.  The  very  purpose  of  

integration was to remove the inequality and provide  

them with the opportunity for promotion to the post  

of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police.  If  length  of  

continuous  service  in  the  highest  cadre  of  some  

similar  services  is  taken as  the  basis  of  fixing  the  

23

Page 24

seniority  and for  further  promotion to higher  posts  

that would certainly result in deeper injustice to the  

members  of  the  other  services.  It  was  hence  the  

State,  after  due  deliberations  and  based  also  on  

report of an expert Committee consisting of the top  

level offices in the State, took an equitable decision  

to make the post  of  sub-inspector of  Police,  where  

there is direct level entry in one of the services, as  

the determining factor for  fixation of seniority.  The  

writ  petitioner  did  not  suffer  any  demotion  in  the  

process. He continued in the post of inspector. The  

only thing is that his compeers in Sikkim Police Force  

who could not get accelerated promotion to the post  

of inspector, but who are admittedly senior to him if  

the date of appointment to the post of sub-inspector  

is taken, were given the deemed date of promotion  

to the post of inspector based on the seniority at the  

level  of  sub-inspector.  The  amended  rule  certainly  

has  thus  a  nexus  to  the  injustice  sought  to  be  

removed so  as  to  balance the  equity.  It  is  neither  

irrational nor arbitrary.

27. It is significant also to note that in the whole State of  

Sikkim,  the  writ  petitioner  is  the  only  person  who  24

Page 25

challenged  the  amendment  which  by  itself  would  

show  that  it  was  a  case  of  a  solitary  instance,  

assuming there is basis for his grievance. We may,  

however, take note of a factual position that the writ  

petitioner  was  senior  to  some  of  the  private  

respondents if his date of entry in service as Sikkim  

Police  Constable  is  taken.  But  when  the  Sikkim  

Vigilance Police was formed, he opted for that and he  

was  absorbed  in  that  Police  wherein  he  got  

accelerated promotions to the various posts of head  

constable, assistant sub-inspector, sub-inspector and  

inspector.  But  it  appears  that  such  a  ground  with  

regard  to  his  original  date  of  entry  as  a  police  

constable in 1974 is not taken anywhere.

28. All that apart, if we closely analyse Rule 9(1), it can  

be seen that the principle of fixation of seniority as  

introduced by the amendment was already there. It is  

already provided therein that the relative seniority of  

the members recruited directly will be fixed based on  

the date of induction to the cadre. In other words,  

date  of  induction  to  a  cadre  where  there  is  direct  

recruitment is the basis of fixation of seniority in the  

instant case at the level of sub-inspector. Thus, the  25

Page 26

amendment  is  merely  clarificatory  in  nature  and,  

therefore, it is deemed to exist from the original date  

of commencement of the Rule in 2000.

29. Be  that  as  it  may,  the  High  Court  has  already  

protected  the  promotions  granted  to  the  private  

respondents but the High Court has struck down the  

Rule and has quashed the seniority list. As we have  

already  noted  above,  the  High  Court  has  

unfortunately  missed the crucial  consideration with  

regard to the principles set by the State with regard  

to  fixation  of  seniority,  the  purpose  sought  to  be  

achieved in the process, the relevant considerations  

which  lead  to  the  decision  and  the  materials  

including the report of the expert committee which  

were relied on by the State in the process of making  

and taking of the decision. The State has only acted  

within  its  authority  under  Article  309  of  the  

Constitution  of  India  in  bringing  about  the  

clarificatory amendment with regard to the fixation of  

seniority  in  the  cadre  of  sub-inspectors.  The  

retrospectivity  given to the private respondents  by  

giving  the  deemed  date  of  promotion  is  neither  

arbitrary  nor  unreasonable.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  26

Page 27

perfectly  just,  fair  and  equitable  in  the  given  

circumstances  without  which  the  integration  of  

services would have resulted in graver inequality and  

injustice to the members of the major service. In the  

result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment  

is  set  aside.  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  private  

respondent in High Court is dismissed.  

30. We  have  already  noted  above  that  the  first  

respondent-writ  petitioner  was  also  promoted  as  

Deputy Superintendent of Police and he has retired  

from service. Rule 17 of the 2000 Rules has provided  

for power of relaxation to the State. Since the first  

respondent-writ  petitioner  had  actually  entered  in  

service  in  1974,  prior  to  some  of  the  private  

respondents,  this could have been probably a case  

for the State Government to exercise that power. We  

do not propose to relegate the first respondent-writ  

petitioner  at  this  stage for  that  remedy.  For  doing  

complete justice, being a solitary case, we hold that  

the  benefits  granted  by  the  High  Court  in  the  

impugned Judgment to the writ petitioner, shall not  

be disturbed.

27

Page 28

31. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as  

to costs.

                                                                                                 ………………………J.

                  (H. L.  

GOKHALE)

                                                                      ……………… ………J.

                  (KURIAN  JOSEPH)

New Delhi; February 18, 2014.  

28