BISHAN SARUP GUPTA ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 16-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

104
BISHAN SARUP GUPTA ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
April 16, 1974
[A. N. RAY C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI
AND P. N. BHAGWATI, JJ.J
Jncome.-tax _Officers (Class I) Service _(R~gulation of Seniority Rules 1973-
Whether violative of Art. 16 of the Constlfutton-lf the Rules are just and fair.
A
B
The above appeals were disposed of by this Court on 16-8-72.
The court set
aside: the seniority-,Jist prepared by the Department on 15-7-68 and gave directions
as to how the same was to be prepared. This Court held that the Government's
decision to promote a large number of Income Tax Officers from Class II to
Class I infringed the quota rule which gave 66}o/o of the posts to the direct
recruits and 33t% of the posts to the promotees anct therefore, the quota rule
C
collapsed and it was for the Government to devise a just and fair seniority rule as
between the direct recruits and the promotees for bdng given effect to from
16-1-1959. It followed from the judgment tltat the Government will
prepare
the seniority list from 1951 to 15-1-195-9 in accordance with the quota rule of
1952 r/w the seniority rule I(f) (iii). The seniority list from 16-1-1959 will be
prepared in accordance wilh the rule to be freshly made by the Government in
that behalf.
·
Al:cordingly on February 9, 1973 the President under the proviso to Art. 309
D
of the Constitution, made rules called the Income-tax Officers (Class I) Service
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1973, which were to come into force from
16-1-1959. Rule 3 which provided for seniority of officers-was that seniority
among the promotees inrer se shall be determined in the order of selection for
such promotion.
The seniority an1ong the direct recruits inter se shall be deter-
mined by the order of merit in which they are selected and the relative seniority
among the promotees and the direct recruits shall be in the ratio I : 1 and sha11
be regulated in accordance with a roster maintained for the purpose etc.
E
When the present seniority list was prepared Government had on its hands 73
promotees (Spill-over) who, though appointed earlier between 1956-1958, had
·no quota posts for their absorption.
Therefore, the Government had to prepare
a new seniority list not only as regards the officers who were absorbed in the
11erv1ce before 15-1-1959 but all officers including these spill-overs,
aopointed
after 15-1-1959.
Th~ seniority list from serial No. 1 to serial No.
485 (who
were appointed prior to 15-1-1959) ha~ been prepared in accordance with
-the
quota system and serial No. 486 to 1717 related to officers_ who have to be
E
accommodated from 16-1-1959 in accordance with the new Seniority Rule. Since
under Rule 3(iii), the promotee must come first, and then the direct recruit,
serial No. 486 went to the promotee and serial No. 487 went to a direct recruit
and so on.
•
The contention of 7?. spill-over promotees of 16-1-1959 was that since this
Court had directed that they should be absorbed on a "priority basis'', all of them
should have been shown in the Seniority List, as having been appointed on
......_ __ ~
16-1-1959 in a block and thereafter the direct recruits for that year should have
G
been shown.
It was further contended that as the quota rule expired on
16·1-1959, the
promotees must be deemed to have been validly appointed in accordance with
rule 4 of the Income-tax Officers (Class I) Grade II Service Recrnitm~nt Rules
1945 and since there remained! in existence. no seniority or quota rule determining
their seniority vis-a-vis the direct resru.its, their natural seniority of earlier appoint-
ment cannot retrospectively be altered to their detriment, and to do '50 would be
1-1
violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the petitions and holding that the new seniority list is the correct
seniority list.
•
A
B
c
D
E
B. S. GUPTA V. UNION
105
HELD : ( 1) It is true that this Court had directed that the aforesaid 73 pro-
motees should be ab.jorbed on a "prionty bas_is".
That only meant that their
position as seniors should not be prejudiced by any possible claim by later pro-
motees, on the ground that being recruited outside the quota, they had higher
rights than these 73 promotees who had no posts. It was not intended that these
73 promotees should not be governed by any seniority rule. They were to be
governed by a rule which covered all those who ca·me or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.