Full Judgment
2. Admittedly applicant appeared in Civil Services Examination, 1988 and was allotted to I.P.S. (1989 Batch). He joined the service on 22.8.89 and reported for the Foundation Course (FC) at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Some of his I.P.S. batchmales took exemption from joining F.C. in order to appear in CSE, 1989 to improve their prospects. Those who could not improve their prospects joined the F.C. in 1990 and completed their probationary training in due course.
3. Rule 3(3) IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 governs the fixation of seniority of direct recruit IPS Officers. Prior to the amendments, an exempted probationer who was permitted to join probationary training with Direct Recruit Officers of a subsequent year of allotment, was to be assigned that subsequent year of allotment.
That sub-rule was amended by Notification dated 20.1.94 (Annexure R-1) which was deemed to have come into effect on 27.7.88, whereby only direct recruit officers other than exempted probationers, who were permitted to join probationery training with direct recruit officer of a subsequent year of allotment were to be assigned that subsequent year of allotment. In other words, applicant's IPS batchmates who had sought exemption from Foundation Course, 1989 in order to appear in CSE, 1989 to improve their prospects and finding their efforts unsuccessful joined F.C. in 1990, were, as per the aforesaid amendment to be assigned 1989 as their year of allotment.
4. This has been done by impugned seniority list dated 15,12.1994, the actual inter se seniority between applicant and other I.P.S. direct recruit officers of 1989 batch (including those who had secured exemption from FC, 1989) being determined in accordance with Rule 10 IPS (Probation) Rules.
5. Applicant's grievance is that IPS Officers of 1989 batch who had taken exemption from FC, 1989 to appear in CSE, 1989 to improve their prospects should not have been allotted 1989 as their year of allotment. In this connection, he relies on the U.P. IPS Civil List as on 1.1.93 (Annexure A-4) in which he is shown an officer of 1989 batch at Sl. No. 259, while others who took exemption from FC, 1989 are shown much below him as officers of 1990 batch. On the basis of the aforesaid Civil List, applicant questions how those very officers have been shown as belong to 1989 batch vide impugned list dated 15.12.94 6. Respondents have correctly pointed out that the contents of the Civil List cannot be deemed to convey any sanction or authority in the matter of seniority, pay or allowances, and indeed there is a superscription to this effect on the cover of the IPS Civil List (Annexure R-III). Hence the entries in the Civil List relied upon by applicant do not advance his cause.
7. Shri Behera has also challenged the retrospectivity given by Notification dated 20.1.94 to the amendments to Rule 3(3) IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules. Shri Behera States that an accrued right having vested with applicant under the statute, the same could not be defeated by retrospective amendment of Rules. Reliance in this connection is placed on Union of India v. T.K. Mohanty and Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 450.
8. We have examined the ruling in Mohanty's case (supra) carefully.
That judgment itself recognises that the legislature and the competent authority under Article 309 of the Constitution have the power to make laws with retrospective effect. What was struck down was the action in enacting retrospective legislation to render nugatory a favourable Court decision obtained by a Government employee to whom an accrued right had vested. Clearly the present case is not one wherethe Notification dated 20.1994 has been given retrospectivity merely to nullify a Court: decision, and as noticed above, the ruling in Mohanty's case (supra) itself recognises the power available to the legislature and the competent authority to make laws with retrospective effect. Hence Mohanty's case (supra) provides no assistance to applicant.
9. Another ruling relied by Shri Behera is IAS(SCS) Association v.Union of India and Ors., 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 730. At the outset we note that the facts and circumstances of that case are quite different from the present one in as much as that case relates in the fixation of seniority between State Civil Service Officers on their promotion to the IAS. Further we note that although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is a prohibition to giving retrospective effect to rules so as to affect prudicially the interest of any person to whom such rules may be applicable, the proviso to Rule 3(3X11) IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 as introduced by an amendment in 1989 with retrospective effect from 3.2.89 was held as not violalive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence that ruling also does not assist applicant.
10. The reasons for giving the amendment to Rule 3(3) IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 retrospective effect from 27.7.88 vide Notification dated 20.1.94 have been set out in the explanatory Memorandum to that Notification. A perusal of that Memorandum reveals that the retrospectivity was necessary because in the C.A.T., P.B.ruling in O.A. No. 206/89 Alok Kunmr v. U.O.I, as well as in the Hon'ble Supreme Courts ruling in M.K. Singhania and Ors. v. U.O.I, and Ors. and connected cases 1992 (19) ATC 881, it had been held that the year of allotment of exempted probationers could not be depressed and further in the ruling in Singhania's case (supra) it was held : "The seniority of the successful candidates in CSE, 1990 would depend on the service to which they have qualified. The seniority of the left out candidates would be maintained in case they have joined the service to which they had been allocated on the results of previous CSE and such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of seniority as held by C.A.T., Delhi in its judgment." 11. In the light of the aforesaid clear and categorical ruling, applicant's contention that those IPS officers of 1989 batch who took exemption from FC. 1989 to appear in CSE, 1989 to improve their prospects but upon failing that their prospects had not improved, joined FC, 1990 as IPS probationers, should not be given 1989 as their year of allotment, or if granted 1989 as the year of allotment should be kept enbloc below the non-exempted probationers, can not be accepted as the same is violatlve of Rule 10 IPS (Probation) Rules, 1954 which determine the inter se seniority of IPS probationers of the same batch, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Singhania's case (supra).