LexASHOK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA.AND ORS. versus RAM LAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 299 ASHOK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA.AND ORS. v. RAM LAL AND OTHERS (C.A. No. 4968 of 2007) JANUARY 8, 2008 (ALTAMAS KABIR AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950: Article 320(3) proviso - Withdrawal of posts from purview A B of State Public Service Commission and appointments to such C posts by State Government - HELD: Proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 empowers the Governor of a State to withdraw from the purview of Public Service Commission, services and posts in connection with affairs of the State, and to make regulations in respect thereof- Uttar Pradesh (Sales Tax Officers Grade- D II) Service Rules, 1983: Service Law: Uttar Pradesh (Sales Tax Officers Grade-II) Service Rules, 1983: E r. 3(as amended in 1997) - "Substantive appointment" - Trade Tax Officers Grade II - Appointed in 1987 under direct recruits quota, by State Government thro'ugh 'Limited Departmental Examination' after withdrawing certain posts from purview of UP. Public Service Commission - Seniority of, vis- F a-vis direct recruits appointed in 1990 pursuant to requisition of 1985 and selection tests held in 1988 - HELD: In view of the amendment made in r.3 in 1997 and in facts and circumstances of the case, the officers appointed in 1987 through 'Limited Departmental Examination' must be held to G · have been substantively appointed at the time of their initial appointment - Seniority list to be revised accordingly - Constitution of India - Article 320(3), proviso - Equity The Commissioner, Trade Tax sent various 299 H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A requisitions to the U.P. Public Service Commission in the years 1980 to 1986 for selecting candidates to fill up the vacancies of Trade Tax Officers Grade II in the U.P. Trade Tax Department, under the direct recruits quota, but latter could not meet the demand. Since the work of assessment B and collection of revenue was being hampered seriously, the Cabinet approved Department's proposal to withdraw 97 posts of Trade Tax Officer Grade II of direct recruits from the purview of the Public Service Commission, and to conduct a 'Limited Departmental Examination' to fill up c the said posts. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Trade Tax invited applications from amongst the permanent employees in Grade 'C' to fill up the said 97 posts under the direct recruits quota. This was challenged in a Writ Petition No.456 of 1987 before the High Court which 0 passed an interim order. to the effect that the Department would make ad hoc appointments in the vacant posts of Sales Tax Officer Grade-II. Consequently, the candidates selected through the 'Limited Departmental Examination' were given appointment 1.etters on 26.8.1987 containing the condition that their appointment was ad hoc and would E be subject to the result in the writ petitions pending before the High Court. Another writ petition was filed, which came to be known as Zaki Khan's case, challenging the Government Order withdrawing the 97 posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission. The said writ F petition was dismissed on 19.5.1996 by the High Court upholding the decision of the State Government. The S.L.P. filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. G In view of the decision in Zaki Khan's case, Writ Petition No.456 of 1987 was also dismissed. Meanwhile, on 28.10.1995, the Government proposed to regularize the services of the candidates appointed through the 'Limited Departmental Examination' in 1987 and amended the definition of "substantive appointment" in the Uttar H I .. ' i .... ( ASHOK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. v. 301 RAM LAL AND OTHERS Pradesh (Sales Tax Officers Grade-II) Service Rules, 1983 A to include therein the appointments made in 1987 through the 'Limited Departmental Examination'. The amendment was challenged in a writ petition. Further writ petitions were filed by the direct recruits selected pursuant to the 1985 requisition and appointed between 1990 and 1996 B as also by the candidates selected in 1987 through the 'Limited Departmental Examination' claiming seniority over each other. Ultimately, on the directions of the Supreme Court, all the writ petitions were placed for hearing before a Special Bench of the High Court. During the pendency C of the writ petitions, the State Government regularized the services of the candidates appointed through the 'Limited Departmental Examina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.