LexBISHAN SAR UP GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.
•
BISHAN SAR UP GUPTA
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
(With connected civil appeals)
August- 16, 1972
[S. M. S!KRr, C.J. A. N. RAY, l. D. DUA, D. Q. PALEKAR, ANb
M. H. BEG, JJ.]
B
l!'iAofne-Tax Officers Class I, Grade JI Service Rccruiflnent Rules of 1945-
Rule 4 of the Rules of Pro1notion for Direct rccruits-Wlre1i a statutory duty
is cast on the Goren1J11ent to deten11ine the n;ethod to be e1nployed for the
recruitrnent of candidates to vacancies in sen·ice and once the Governrllent has
fixed the quota Rules of 2 : 1, the pron1otees are entitled till January 16th, 1959
C
to 331/J: per cent of "the l'acancies both in pern1anent and temporary posts, in
any particular year irre:rpecdre of tfie fact whCtT1er the/'€' was any direct rrt:ruU~
nzent by cornpelitire examination in that year.
The scope of Rule I({) (iii) and (iv) of the semonty . Rules of the
InCllme-Tax Officers (Class I Grade II) stn'ice Recruitment Rules and •!lo
Rule 4 of the llules of Promotion of the Boatd of Revenue Office Procedurt
ManutX came to ht! considered 'ln "laisl11Rliarii's case" [1967} (2) SCR 703
and the Supreme Court ·while rejecting the contention· that the
rule
was
violative of.- Art 14 and 16 of the Constitution issued a nzandamus to 11tepare
a fresh seniority rule b~ed on the "quota rule" of 2 : 1 between the direct
recruit, and the "Promotees" for the year 1952-56. The. Government Uf)oet-
stood the mandamus as also for the years upto 1967 and prepared a freth
seniority list dated 15-7-1968 and the
appellants
challenged the
same
1111
violative 6f the mandalnus issued by the Court :
Accepting the appeals the Court,
E
HELD : It was for the Government under rule ·4 of the Income-TU
Officers Class I, Grade II Service Recruitment Rules to determine the method
or methods to be employed for the purposes of filling any particq1ar vacancies
and the number of vacancies and the number of candidates to be recruited by
'
each method. 'It is \V!Ong to assume that this Court woUld take upon itself
F
to do what the Government is required to do under rule 4. The n1a11da11u1S
\Vas really confined to the period bct"·cen l 951-1956. [49.5·H]
Rule 4 of tht- ]i'lcome•Tax Cla~ 1, Grade II Service ltecruitment ·Rules
also refers to reoruitment of candidates to vacancies in the
service.
The
vacancies for ariy particular, year being ascertained not more than ;..§rd of the
same were to go to the promotees and the rest to the direct recruits.
The
ratio was not made dependent on whether any direct recruit was appaintcd
in any particular year or not. The promotees were entitled to V3rd of the
G
yacancies in any particular year whether or not there was direct recruitment
by competitive exarninaticm in that year.
[499G-H]
lt is true that the quota rule refers to vacancies but the vacancies are
those vacancies which the Government wants to fill.
It is the prerogative of
the Government, reflected further in Rule 4, Whether any vacancy may be
filled at all or not.
Thel'efore, when the quota Tule tefers to vacancies it is,
implicit in the rule tha:t the vacancies are vacancies, \vhich the Government,
H
want to fill, whatever may be the actual number of vacancies. [501D·FJ
There is no sufficient warrant for the conlention that the vacancies referred
to in the quota rule <.!fe vacancies only in the permanent cadre.
[502D·E]
S. G. laisinfhani v. Union of India & Ors. [1967] (2) SCR 703, nature of
nianda1nus clarified.
10 SC/75-33
492
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP. S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2060(N) of
1971.
B
Appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd
September 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 196 of
1970 and Civil Appeal Nos. 67"139 and 393 of 1972.
For the Appellants : Yogeshwar Prasad & Mrs. S. Bagga in C.A.
2060171 and C.A. 393172, S. P. Nayar in C.A. 67 /72 and J.C. Talwar
& Bishamber Lal in C.A. 139 /72.
For the Respond?nts: S. P. Nayar in C.A. 2060/71, C.A. 139/72
and C.A. 393/72, J. C. Talwar & Bishamber Lal in C.A. 2060/71
C and C.A. 67 /72, Yogeshwar Prasad & Mrs. S. Bagga in C.A. 67 /72
and 139/72 and B. R. Agarwala in C.A. 67/72 & C.A. 393/72.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PALEKAR, !.-In these appeals the challenge i~ to the seniority
p list of Income-tax Officers prepared by the Central Board of Revenue
in ,pursuance of the orders of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1038
of 1965 and Writ PExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.