DINKAR ANNA PATIL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 09-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DINKAR ANNA PATIL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 9, 1988 
B 
[G.T. NANA VA TI AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Sen•ice Law : 
Maharashtra Sales Tax Officers Class-I (Recruitment) Rules, 19821 
C Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982: Rules 4 
and 4A/Rules 3(/) and 4-Post of Sales Tax Officers Class-/ introduced in the 
Sales Tax Department-Appointment to the posts to be made by nomination 
and promotion in the ratio specified-Upto 1986, appointments made by 
promotion only-Quota rules violated-Recruitment Rules amended in 1987 
by inserting rule 4A-Oovernment empowered to violate rule 4 in case of 
D exigencies-Direct recruitment made to the said posts in 1988 only-Seniority 
Lists prepared by the State Government showing direct recruits below the 
promotees-Benefit of fortuitous period of service given to the promotees--
Petition filed by the direct recruits before the Administrative Tribunal 
dismissed-Appeal preferred-On appeal, Held: The appointment of promotees 
E was fortuitous-No order for regularization was passed subsequently-Period 
of fortuitous service of the promotees to be excluded in preparing the Seniority 
List-Representations were sent by direct recruits against the Seniority Lists 
not responded-Hence the case cannot be said to be suffering from /aches. 
In 1977, Government of Maharashtra, with a view to restructure the 
F Department of Sales Tax, introduced a new cadre of Sales Tax Officers Class 
-I in the hierarchy one step above the Sales Tax Officers Class-II and below 
the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Accordingly, in exercise of the 
powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia, 
the State Government framed Maharashtra Sales Tax Officers Class-I 
(Recruitment) Rules, 1982 which came into force on 1st April, 1982. Rule 4 
G thereof provided that the appointment to the post of Sales Tax Officer Class-
1 by promotion and nomination to be in the specified ratio. On 21-06-1982, 
the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 were 
framed which provided the eligibility criteria. Rule 3(t) defined fortuitous 
appointment whereas Rule 4 stipulated that services on account of fortuitous 
H appointment were to be excluded in computing the length of service. 
564 
D.A. PATIL v. STATE 
565 
In October, 1982, the respondent replaced the said Recruitment Rules A 
issued in March with a fresh set of rules namely "The Maharashtra Sales 
Tax Officers Class-I (Recruitment) Rule, 1982" with retrospective effect. 
l.Jnder the new rules, the ratio of filling up the promotional and quota posts 
remained the same. During the period 1982-86, no appointment was made 
by nomination. On the contrary, the respondent Government filled 7 47 posts 
of Sales Tax Officers Class-I en bloc by giving promotions to the promotees B 
in violation of the statutory ~uota rules. The said appointments were 
provisional and fortuitous. 
In 1988, the appellants for the first time were appointed as Sales Tax 
Officers Class-I by way of direct recruitment. The respondent government, C 
by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Officers Class-I (Recruitment) (Amendment) 
Rules, 1987, inserted Rule 4A in the Recruitment Rules, 1982. According 
to the said newly inserted rule the State Government, in case of requirement 
of exigencies, in consultation with the Maharashtra Public Service 
Commission was empowered to make appointments to the posts in 
relaxation of the percentage prescribed in Rule 4 for appointment by D 
promotion and nomination. 
On the basis of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules the respondent 
published a Provisional Seniority List of Sales Tax Officers Class-I as on 
01-04-1987 which was finalised later. Names of the appellants could not be 
included in the said list as the appellants were appointed only in September, E 
1988. Another Provisional Seniority List was published in January wherein 
the promotees i.e. the private respondents were shown above the direct 
recruits i.e. the appellants. The appellants' representation challenging 
legality of the said List was rejected. The third provisional seniority list was 
published in April, 1993 wherein the quota rule was applied following a 
decision of the Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sales Tax Inspectors F 
wherein a direction was made to apply the quota rules. However, the said 
list also did not apply the quota rules finally and the appellants' 
representation was not resp

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