CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ANR. versus DR. O.N. TRIPATHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 24-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. O.N. TRIPATHI AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Income Tax Officers, Class I-Promotion to 
Assistant Commissioner's posts-Consideration of superseded officers 
from 1962 ·onwards-Directions of Court in earlier cases-Clatification 
of. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
Respondents .Nos. 1 and 2, direct recruit Income Tax Officers, 
Class I, filed a petition before .the Central Administrative Tribunal 
contending that they were not appointed to the next higher post of 
Assistant Commissioner according to their turn in the seniority list 
prepared as per directions given by the. Court in Bishan Sarup Gupta D 
etc. etc. v. Union of India, (1975] 1SCR104 and Union of India Etc. v. 
Majji Jangammayya, (1977] 2 SCR 28, adversely affecting their senior-
ity as Assistant CommissiOners, and hence it required correction. 
The Tribunal quashed ·the seniority list of Assistant Commis-
sioners and Commissioners of Income Tax and directed the appellants E 
to redetermine their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Commissioners 
vis-a-vis the seniority of respondents No. 3 to 20, also direct recruits 
and other concerned officers, in the light of the directions and princi-
ples laid down by this Court in Majji Jangamayya's case. Hence the 
appeal by the Department. 
F 
It was .contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the 
instructions of this Court in 1st B. S. Gupta case (1975) Supp SCR 491, as 
explained in Majji Jangamayya's case, while selecting the Income Tax 
Officers to the post of Assistant Commissioners, the Department.il 
Promotion Committee was required to consider the cases of the Income 
Tax Officers falling within the zone with reference to the records, either G 
on the date of seniority list was prepared i.e. February 2, 1973 (as 
approved by the Court in 2nd Gnpta case) or on the date the Committee 
met for selection, and not with reference to their records relevant to the 
year for which their selection was to made, but since the Committee bad 
followed the latter course, it bad violated the directions of this Court. It 
was also urged that the selection was not made according to the iilstruc-
H 
335 
A 
B 
c 
D 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
tions given in the Government Memorandum of I957, and that while 
making the promotions, merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-
merit formula, should have been followed. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I.I The dispute with regad to the seniority between the 
direct recrnits and the promotees in the Income Tax Department was 
set at rest by this Conrt in 2nd B.S. Gupta case wherein this Court 
accepted as correct the seniority list of Income Tax Officers, prepared 
in ac;,cordance with the directions given in the 1st B.S .. Gupta case. 
While upholding the selection list for promotion of Income Tax Offi-
cers, Class-I to the posts of Assistant Commissioners prepared on the 
basis of the aforesaid seniority list and the instructions in the Govern-
ment Memorandnm of I957, in Majji Jangamayya's case, this. Court 
explained the observations made in the Jst B.S. Gupta's case. [338B-C; Fl 
I 
I.2 What was desired by this Court in the 1st B.S. Gupta case 
and Majji Jangamayya case was that if according to the new seniority 
list tliere. w~re cases of officers who were entitled to be considered for 
promotion much before they were considered on the basis of the old 
seniority list, the Committee should look into such cases, and should 
adjust the pr!Jmotion given right from the year I962 onwards by con-
sidering the "cases of such unjustly superseded officers. Hence t_he Com-
E 
mittee was required to consider the vacancies in the posts of Asstt. 
Commissioners year-wise from I962 onwards and if the superseded 
officers were found tit for such promotion, they were to be given senio-
rity as Asstt. Commissioners from the year in which they would have 
been promoted. Thus, while considering the promotion .. 1n the earlier 
years, the Committee had to consider the record of the officers relevant 
F 
to those years. The Committee could not have taken into consideration 
the record offuture years for promotion in the earlier years. This is the 
import of the observations of this Court. [3400-F; BJ 
, . 
' 
. 
. 
1.3 The Committee, which met from I977 to I979 to adjust the 
promotions as directed by this Court, considered in I978 the cases of 
G 
Res

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